Jail for doing 44km/h over the 120km/h limit

CiniO

Wibbs wrote: »

An old Clio will be significantly lighter too which has an impact on stopping distances.

No it doesn't really.

Lighter weight means less friction between tyres and road so worse stopping distance. But at the same time, as car is lighter, it's less weight to stop, so better stopping distance.
Generally this simple physics equalizes stopping distance for most cars.

It works bit the way you said but opposite on larger scale though. F.e. trucks and buses having longer stopping distance than cars. And cars having longer stopping distance than motorbikes.

Assuming braking system is fully operational in good condition, the biggest factor is probably tyres.
I could bet big money that old clio will stop sooner from 150km/h on good tyres, then M5 on crap chineese ditchfinders.

OldMrBrennan83

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Baloney, I got done at 172kph on the motorway, and the guard was quite angry cause it took him ages to catch up to me, but it was still just a fine and points.

So we're making progress then?

sunnysoutheast

I'd love to see some sort of evidence that the stopping distance of a BMW M5 and an "old Clio" from 150-0 would be comparable!

oLoonatic

deceit wrote: »

Why is that speed considered dangerous? Its relatively slow on a well maintained motorway. In my opinion its crazy to even get points for it.

We don't have proper motorways, and i will go out on a limb and say no one in this country has been taught how to drive on one.

deceit wrote: »

Its one of the reasons I moved to Germany in December to avoid such sillyness. Over here you could be cruising at 200 and be passed like your standing still.

You moved to Germany so you could drive faster!??? what an odd reason.

Mrnew

I love brining my old 90s Japanese car to Mexico and going past 180.

In all seriousness the talk of restricting cars to 120 is so silly and would destroy the car market so it will never happen, I do think the 120 speed limit on some Irish motor ways could easily be pushed up to 140. I do agree it depends on the car and situation too you have to take in all the factors to fully understand why they would threaten jail time

CiniO

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

I'd love to see some sort of evidence that the stopping distance of a BMW M5 and an "old Clio" from 150-0 would be comparable!

https://arachnoid.com/braking_physics/index.html

Here's explanation of braking physics.

I'm not saying that old clio and new M5 will have exactly same braking distance.
Adequately balanced car with perfectly working braking system will brake faster than just basic car.
Difference won't be big though.

Why sport cars have huge ventilated discs and sports pads is for heat resistance during long time braking.

F.e. in a clio you might stop from 150km/h to 0 and brakes will be roasting hot. Accelerate again to 150 and brake again, and your braking force will be already much affected. Do it again, you might not brake at all.

While the M5 you might be doing a circuit of 20km, and brake from 150 to 50 in front of every bend, and brakes should not overheat.

Tacitus Kilgore

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

I'd love to see some sort of evidence that the stopping distance of a BMW M5 and an "old Clio" from 150-0 would be comparable!

Could be an 'old' clio 197, or a clio v6 maybe? with performance oriented brakes

In any case the latter wouldn't make it off the sliproad without crashing into the barriers on the side of it - so it's stopping distance would be irrelevant.


I'm going to wager that an m5 on ditchfinders would take longer to stop on a dry road on a warm day than a clio 197 on semi slicks would.



In short - there's too many variables for anyone to say conclusively.

MarkR

Wasn't there a model or rose of tralee or something who got caught doing similar speed, and got off with a warning? Consistancy in sentancing is a joke.

Tacitus Kilgore

MarkR wrote: »

Wasn't there a model or rose of tralee or something who got caught doing similar speed, and got off with a warning? Consistancy in sentancing is a joke.

Yeah but she was late for something and didn't realise how fast she was going, totally different set of circumstances



:pac:

creedp

Tiguan Joe wrote: »

Probably a dumb question but is it possible to limit the speed on all cars to the max speed limit (120kph) before they are even sold so that even if you want to go over speed limit you can't ?
Why are cars in Ireland capable of speeds so much over the limit.

Why would you only limit them to 120kmh? Even if you did they could still break the national roads speed limits by 20%. Is that not dangerous too? So I think cars should be limited to 100kmh. Oh wait then they could still exceed the rural road speed limit by 25% Is that dangerous? How may people die on rural roads? Where do most accidents occur? Wow this is difficult!!

Rubberchikken

he went over the speed limit.
his punishment is just.
maybe the message will get through, to him anyway.

judging by the amount of people who think it was too harsh, im guessing these are the same 'excellent' drivers who think speed limits should be abolished or are only there for fools to obey.

being employed/unemployed/only driver in family/yawn is no defence. never will be imo.

CiniO

Rubberchikken wrote: »

he went over the speed limit.
his punishment is just.
maybe the message will get through, to him anyway.

judging by the amount of people who think it was too harsh, im guessing these are the same 'excellent' drivers who think speed limits should be abolished or are only there for fools to obey.

being employed/unemployed/only driver in family/yawn is no defence. never will be imo.

That's exactly what I think.

And punishment is not just.
Doing 164km/h on motorway is hardly a speeding. In most places in Europe there wouldn't even be a fine, or only a small one.

Putting someone to jail for that is about as much ridiculous as putting someone to jail for littering.

The high horse brigade

It's ridiculous. If it were on a dangerous stretch of road maybe. Not a motorway.

redcup342

Rubberchikken wrote: »

he went over the speed limit.
his punishment is just.
maybe the message will get through, to him anyway.

judging by the amount of people who think it was too harsh, im guessing these are the same 'excellent' drivers who think speed limits should be abolished or are only there for fools to obey.

being employed/unemployed/only driver in family/yawn is no defence. never will be imo.

That's the whole problem, people like you think of Prison as a form of punishment, as a way to make society feel better.

Prison should be used as a method to protect the population from immediate danger and rehabilitation of the offender.

The prisons are full to the point where people are sleeping on the floor:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-the-state-of-irish-prisons-a-bleak-picture-1.3544717

Incarceration should be a penalty of last resort. Only those who pose a serious threat to society should be sent to jail. When they are, however, the State must ensure they obey the rules while protecting them from assault or intimidation.

Driving over the posted speed limit on the motorway with a fully legal car and no intentional threatening later doesn't warrant 2 months incarceration.

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

Vinnie222

The high horse brigade wrote: »

It's ridiculous. If it were on a dangerous stretch of road maybe. Not a motorway.

Exactly its also costing the tax-payer €1,842 per week to jail this chap . Crazy decision

selectamatic

MarkR wrote: »

Wasn't there a model or rose of tralee or something who got caught doing similar speed, and got off with a warning? Consistancy in sentancing is a joke.

And at around the same time a young fella down munster somewhere driving an integra got 2 years off the road for doing around 170km/h

iirc.

MarkR

Found her.

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

Faster than he was doing, and no ban. I don't even see points.

Old diesel

selectamatic wrote: »

And at around the same time a young fella down munster somewhere driving an integra got 2 years off the road for doing around 170km/h

iirc.

"Aaaaah the looovely Rose - she just made a little mistake. God love her. We can go easy on her".

"That idiot in an Integra I will knock the smile out of him - give him a hard penalty. Fed up of hearing dem fast Hondas racing up and down the road".

Edit - I wonder how Grainne gets on if.....

1) she was driving her dad's Audi RS4 because....

2) her twin cam drift car was in for repair.

All about the stereotyping

baldshin

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/358271/driving-ban-for-addict-who-reversed-car-at-limerick-gardai-before-high-speed-chase.html?fbclid=IwAR0U3DV1zBK5rbX7nSOUl33HHGsl9VXx1N4qI-4DOXpEe3deSaGIR_Nn5yc#.XEAn0Yn7PeE.facebook

The very same judge today chose not to jail a guy who reversed at Gardai, then took a high speed chase through a built up area in Limerick City Centre. What a joke our judicial system is.

TeaBagMania

bring back the death penalty

Henry Ford III

MarkR wrote: »

Found her.

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

Faster than he was doing, and no ban. I don't even see points.

Judge found her honesty refreshing. I feel all warm and fuzzy

extra-ordinary_

MarkR wrote: »

Found her.

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

Faster than he was doing, and no ban. I don't even see points.

That judge should be fired..ha can't do his job...justice was not seen to be done.

coylemj

This highlights the lottery which is the attitudes of different judges. In the case of the guy who's the subject of this thread and who got two months jail, his solicitor said he was offering no excuse as to why he was driving at that speed. Plenty of judges would consider this (no BS excuses) as a positive on the defendant's behalf and give him credit for it. In this case, the judge said that having no excuse for speeding was an 'aggravating factor'.

So remember folks, you were late for an important medical appointment.

Old diesel

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Judge found her honesty refreshing. I feel all warm and fuzzy

Full 100 percent honesty might have looked like.....

"I sat into a car i wasn't familiar with - i didn't overly care or pay attention to what I was doing. My only interest was my appointment.

I didn't care about the safety implications of how I was driving. I didn't care about the fact the Mercedes had more power then my 1.4 I normally drive."

She sold the judge a dud story and he bought it

bigroad

No jail time only if you have the following.
More than 50 previous convictions.
No insurance
No NCT.
No licence.
Drug addict. Win
Of you go son and don't come back again.
100euro fine.

McCrack

coylemj wrote: »

This highlights the lottery which is the attitudes of different judges. In the case of the guy who's the subject of this thread and who got two months jail, his solicitor said he was offering no excuse as to why he was driving at that speed. Plenty of judges would consider this (no BS excuses) as a positive on the defendant's behalf and give him credit for it. In this case, the judge said that having no excuse for speeding was an 'aggravating factor'.

So remember folks, you were late for an important medical appointment.

If someone was detected speeding and prosecuted and they were on the way to a medical appointment for example and they had the appointment letter in Court to show the Judge that could look more favourable than a person with no reason for their speeding other than they were

It doesn't excuse the behaviour however.

Melodeon

McCrack wrote: »

If someone was detected speeding and prosecuted and they were on the way to a medical appointment for example and they had the appointment letter in Court to show the Judge that could look more favourable than a person with no reason for their speeding other than they were

It doesn't excuse the behaviour however.

I'd kinda hope that that would get them in deeper hot water, to be honest!
It's not as if it was suddenly sprung upon them as a terrible surprise and they had no time to plan getting there in time.

A medical 'emergency', however...

swarlb

CiniO wrote: »

That's exactly what I think.

And punishment is not just.
Doing 164km/h on motorway is hardly a speeding. In most places in Europe there wouldn't even be a fine, or only a small one.

Putting someone to jail for that is about as much ridiculous as putting someone to jail for littering.

We are not in 'most places in Europe'... we are in Ireland. The speed limit is 120kph. So anything in excess of that is 'speeding'.
There have been people jailed for 'littering'. It simply depends on what you constitute as littering (or indeed speeding).

honda boi

MarkR wrote: »

Found her.

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

Faster than he was doing, and no ban. I don't even see points.

And also praised for "honesty"!!! Lol

galwaytt

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Anytime I'm doing a long drive on any motorway in Ireland, doing 110-115, I'm doing the majority of the overtaking, with an occasional person overtaking me. The M1 would be the exception to that.

Anedoctal evidence goes both ways I guess.

Just no. I've driven the M4/M6 Galway-Dublin-Galway about 4 times in the last week and I set my CC at (GPS corrected m'lud) 125kph.

I am being constantly overtaken, by a little, by a lot, but overtaken nevertheless. I would wager that most of those folk think 120 on sign equates to 130+indicated lolz.....

Those Smiths analogue speedo's are woefully inaccurate

coylemj

McCrack wrote: »

If someone was detected speeding and prosecuted and they were on the way to a medical appointment for example and they had the appointment letter in Court to show the Judge that could look more favourable than a person with no reason for their speeding other than they were

Never mind the substance of the excuse, my point is that some judges look favourably on a defendant who, in effect, throws his hands up and offers no excuse.

That might sound counter-intuitive but judges have to sit there all day listening to BS excuses for all sorts of offences. In many cases, this will involve a defendant perjuring himself in the witness box so sometimes they will give credit to a defendant who simply admits his guilt and offers no rubbish excuse.

But in this case, it backfired. Hence my point that it's a lottery and all depends on which judge is on the bench on the day.

BorneTobyWilde

How can judge take law into her own hands, the law is he law. He deserved points and the max fine of 1000 !

professore

Considering the scumbags that get suspended sentences for violent assaults after 50 previous convictions I'd say this is very harsh on the face of it.

Peatys

Does anyone know approx what year the old limit set as 70mph?

Edit, 1992.
With the advances in cars, that could easily be raised to 160kph.

coylemj

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

How can judge take law into her own hands, the law is he law. He deserved points and the max fine of 1000 !

He was convicted of dangerous driving where the max. penalty is much higher than for exceding the speed limit.

Though there didn't appear to be any evidence that that there was an immediate danger to the public. Other judges have thrown out a summons for dangerous driving where the only evidence was that the defendant was exceeding the speed limit.

coylemj

Peatys wrote: »

Does anyone know approx what year the old limit set as 70mph?

Edit, 1992.
With the advances in cars, that could easily be raised to 160kph.

But there hasn't been much in the way of 'advances' to the nut holding the steering wheel. If anything, people are in better insulated cars with their mp3 players wired up to the radio and they are less attuned to what is going on outside.

unkel

CiniO wrote: »

Majority of cars have very similar stopping power.

While acceleration 0-150km/h will be crazy faster in M5 than an old Clio, but stopping from 150km/h to 0 will not differ that much. (assuming Clio's brakes are in good shape, but that's why we have NCT).

You are right to a point, all cars for sale now have ABS brakes, which makes a huge difference. Still the best cars brake from 100km/h to standstill in about 30m, the worst cars in about 50m

As per cartman's comparison, the M5 would be close to 30m, an old Clio without ABS could very easily be more than double that. The difference between the two could be no accident at all in the M5 and a fatal accident in the Clio

mickdw

johnmcdnl wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

I don't live near motorway but anytime I'm driving from West into Dublin, sitting at 120 would have me overtaken constantly and consistently.

Anytime I'm doing a long drive on any motorway in Ireland, doing 110-115, I'm doing the majority of the overtaking, with an occasional person overtaking me. The M1 would be the exception to that.

Anedoctal evidence goes both ways I guess.

I guess it does however if we are to go with your evidence, it would appear that there is no speeding issue at all.

ewj1978

On the old v new cars, my thoughts are thats why road deaths have come down. The safety devices built into modern cars keep you alive.(alive but in what shape is a different matter)

gctest50

Peatys wrote: »

Does anyone know approx what year the old limit set as 70mph?

Edit, 1992.
With the advances in cars, that could easily be raised to 160kph.

The energy involved goes up really quickly though as speed increases

Ultimate Seduction

CiniO wrote: »

Majority of cars have very similar stopping power.

While acceleration 0-150km/h will be crazy faster in M5 than an old Clio, but stopping from 150km/h to 0 will not differ that much. (assuming Clio's brakes are in good shape, but that's why we have NCT).

So wrong.

tuxy

All you have to do is look at the brake calipers and rotors to know that can't be true

Old Corsa


M5

tuxy

There's also this
https://www.asburyauto.com/compare/2018-bmw-m5-vs-2018-cadillac-cts-v/152283

M5 stopping distance at 60mph(96.6 km/h) 110 feet (33.5) metres

http://www.movitcars.com/rahmen/stoptbl.htm
Clio stopping distance 100 km/h 43.4 metres

Henry Ford III

tuxy wrote: »

All you have to do is look at the brake calipers and rotors to know that can't be true

Rotors?

tuxy

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Rotors?

sorry discs
I've seen them called disc rotors, I didn't not that was an incorrect term.

Henry Ford III

tuxy wrote: »

sorry discs
I've seen them called disc rotors, I didn't not that was an incorrect term.

An Americanism I think.

TeaBagMania

yep, i gots rotors on ma Ferd, what the hell are disc's?

McCrack

coylemj wrote: »

Never mind the substance of the excuse, my point is that some judges look favourably on a defendant who, in effect, throws his hands up and offers no excuse.

That might sound counter-intuitive but judges have to sit there all day listening to BS excuses for all sorts of offences. In many cases, this will involve a defendant perjuring himself in the witness box so sometimes they will give credit to a defendant who simply admits his guilt and offers no rubbish excuse.

But in this case, it backfired. Hence my point that it's a lottery and all depends on which judge is on the bench on the day.

Youre conflating a reason for doing something with an excuse for doing something

Judges can spot the difference and decide appropriately

milhous

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Anytime I'm doing a long drive on any motorway in Ireland, doing 110-115, I'm doing the majority of the overtaking, with an occasional person overtaking me. The M1 would be the exception to that.

Anedoctal evidence goes both ways I guess.

Is there any chance they're not overtaking you because you're in the over taking lane? EDIT: sorry it's sounds like I'm attacking you there, im not and then my rant just carried on. No need to answer that as I'm sure you drive properly. EDIT

On your note about the m1, infairness it's a fairly fast flowing motorway, i find it is great until the slow brigade come out. Most of the congestion is due to ppl doing 100km/h or slower and eople in the overtaking lane when they should not be. I think if you see 40 foots over taking you it's time to reevaluate your driving (And I'm aware that 120km/h is a limit not a target, but still).

If people stuck to the correct lane, and were observant when pulling in and out to overtake, then speeds on a good solid motorway (like the m1)at 130/140/150/160 km/h shouldn't be an issue.

I think two laws should start being enforced as much as speeding is, and they are driving in the correct lane, and tailgating.. I'd say these are more important factors effecting congestion and crashes.

coylemj

McCrack wrote: »

Youre conflating a reason for doing something with an excuse for doing something

Judges can spot the difference and decide appropriately

Judges are human, some of them are a soft touch for a lame excuse - Speeding Limerick beauty queen praised for honesty.

'It was me mammy's car so I didn't realise what speed I was doing' - 187 kph and she didn't even get a ban, just a fine and points FFS!