Gatso got me at 70mph. How fooked am i?

kdevitt

I got pulled over for speeding last year - guard said he doesn't take speed readings while people are overtaking, only after they've pulled in. If they're seen to be decellerating after they pull in, he's instructed not to do anything - I got done for doing 78, he said had it been 75 he'd of let me away with it. Unfortunately fixed cameras can't apply any form of decision making.

Rew

kbannon wrote:

from http://www.oasis.gov.ie/transport/motoring/road_traffic_speed_limits_in_ireland.html
Exceptions to speed limits
Speed limits do not apply in Ireland to ambulances, Garda Siochana vehicles being used in the course of duty or fire brigade vehicles.

As far as I know an Army driver can break the limit if he has a warrent signed by a Commandant or above.

lomb

kdevitt wrote:

I got pulled over for speeding last year - guard said he doesn't take speed readings while people are overtaking, only after they've pulled in. If they're seen to be decellerating after they pull in, he's instructed not to do anything - I got done for doing 78, he said had it been 75 he'd of let me away with it. Unfortunately fixed cameras can't apply any form of decision making.

What was the limit 60 or 70?

mackerski

ntl Technical wrote:

Now AFAIK, the ROTR book says that maximum amount of cars you may overtake in one go is 3, provided it is safe to do so (correct me if I am wrong).

Well, I don't own a ROTR, but I've consulted the statute books and can find no reference to a vehicle limit. It seems a foolishly arbitrary number to me, considering that actual speed of the vehicles to be overtaken and power of the overtaking vehicle are far more relevant.

Dermot

Boggle

Yeah, I just had a look aswell and found no reference to overtaking at all. Wonder the info in the ROTR book comes from so....

(Not that I care - it is the official book so what it says is effectively law)

mackerski

Boggle wrote:

Yeah, I just had a look aswell and found no reference to overtaking at all.

This is part of what you were looking for.

Boggle wrote:

(Not that I care - it is the official book so what it says is effectively law)

Not so - only the law is the law.

Dermot

causal

Boggle wrote:

Well unless they've changed it then yes it does. I'll fish out my old book next weekend and give you the details...

Please do! Coz it's gold dust if it says so - permission to break the speed limit - nirvana your honour

Actually very much the same thing. Common sense tells you that you are most at risk when on the other side of the road so the idea is to get off it as soon as possible.

Sure - or don't get on the wrong side unless it's really worth the risk. imho if people are doing 55 in a 60 zone (as per your example) then don't bother overtaking - isn't 55 good enough?

BOLL.......OX to that logic!

Well, if you find the rotr reference that allows breaking the speed limit then I'll agree with you; but if not, then not

causal
(if you want to go faster - take it to the track)

causal

mackerski wrote:

Not so - only the law is the law.

Absolutely correct.
And it gets worse... Look at the rotr and it says

"The booklet is not an interpretation of the law. The overall aim is to promote safety and courtesy in the use of our roads in accordance with the law."

Rules of the Road - what a joke :rolleyes:

causal

unkel

ntl Technical wrote:

Now AFAIK, the ROTR book says that maximum amount of cars you may overtake in one go is 3

Can someone confirm this?

Boggle wrote:

Common sense tells you that you are most at risk when on the other side of the road so the idea is to get off it as soon as possible

I always do this and typically would break the speed limit while overtaking. It is the safest way to overtake and if I'd get caught, so be it

Boggle

Not so - only the law is the law.

Dermot

When I did my test I was referred to this book indicating that it was an accurate reflection of the law. As such it can be taken as correct unless otherwise informed - and I have not been otherwise informed.

Please do! Coz it's gold dust if it says so - permission to break the speed limit - nirvana your honour

Not quite. Just permission to use common sense.

Sure - or don't get on the wrong side unless it's really worth the risk. imho if people are doing 55 in a 60 zone (as per your example) then don't bother overtaking - isn't 55 good enough?

Depending on the road - no! There is nothing more mind-numbingly boring than sauntering along at 55 on a road that could handle 70 or so. As such, people tend to become complacent which can cause accidents.

What if said person was sitting his brakes every time he saw a bend or an oncoming vehicle - would you not consider this a warranted overtaking?

Shing

Quoted from the Rules Of The Road , Page 38:
No vehicle other than exempted vehicles (fire brigades, ambulances, Garda cars) may exceed the maximum road speed limit at any time.

There is no mention of anything about overtaking a maximum of any number of cars. However, it does say:

Quoted from the Rules Of The Road , Page 25:
Do not overtake unless you can do so without risk to yourself or to others...overtake with the minimum of delay.

Regards,
Wai Shing

mackerski

Boggle wrote:

When I did my test I was referred to this book indicating that it was an accurate reflection of the law. As such it can be taken as correct unless otherwise informed - and I have not been otherwise informed.

So because a bloke told you that, and notwithstanding the disclaimer on the book itself and regardless of the fact that the guards only enforce what's on actual statute, you reckon the ROTR booklet is the canonical source of road-traffic laws? Tell you what, why don't I inform you otherwise right now?:

The statute books define road-traffic law. "The Rules of the Road" doesn't. It even says it doesn't.

There, that wasn't all that painful. I have witnesses. No sneaky blaming things on omissions in the ROTR for you...

Or to put it another way, did it never strike you as odd that the Definitive Source should be such a flimsy little booklet with very little inside? At least the Highway Code is comprehensive. (and it's not definitive either).

Dermot

causal

Boggle wrote:

When I did my test I was referred to this book indicating that it was an accurate reflection of the law. As such it can be taken as correct unless otherwise informed - and I have not been otherwise informed.

Did you read the quote I took from the book above? You have been informed otherwise

Not quite. Just permission to use common sense.

There is nothing less common than common sense. Anyway, my common sense would tell me not to overtake a car doing 55mph in a 60 zone. Why bother? So you can be in front of him at the next traffic lights, hmm, that was worth it!

Depending on the road - no! There is nothing more mind-numbingly boring than sauntering along at 55 on a road that could handle 70 or so. As such, people tend to become complacent which can cause accidents.

That's a completely different argument. First you have a problem with someone doing 55 in a 60 limit - and you're convinced it's ok to break the speed limit to overtake them. And now it seems you're suggesting it's ok to break the speed limit if you think it's too low because you'll get bored and have an accident, is that right?

What if said person was sitting his brakes every time he saw a bend or an oncoming vehicle - would you not consider this a warranted overtaking?

Do you get a buzz out of overtaking? Sauntering not exciting enough?

Road = A to B as safe as possible.
Race = A to B as fast as possible.

causal
If you want to go faster take it to the Track

Pataman

Rew wrote:

Actually there are more exemptions to the speed limits then just those with blue lights just not us us mere mortals.

I know but seeing as none of these are relevant to him I see little point in expanding on them.

Boggle

So because a bloke told you that, and notwithstanding the disclaimer on the book itself and regardless of the fact that the guards only enforce what's on actual statute, you reckon the ROTR booklet is the canonical source of road-traffic laws? Tell you what, why don't I inform you otherwise right now?:

Who said anything about some bloke telling me? As far as I can remember it was on the license app forms or came in the post with my application confirmation.

There is nothing less common than common sense. Anyway, my common sense would tell me not to overtake a car doing 55mph in a 60 zone. Why bother? So you can be in front of him at the next traffic lights, hmm, that was worth it!

Funny how everyone says that about common sense. (I have it but no-one else does...!) When driving a car you are responsible forwhat happens to you. If you are incapable of using common sense you wont last very long.

Quoted from the Rules Of The Road , Page 38:
No vehicle other than exempted vehicles (fire brigades, ambulances, Garda cars) may exceed the maximum road speed limit at any time.

There is no mention of anything about overtaking a maximum of any number of cars. However, it does say:

Quoted from the Rules Of The Road , Page 25:
Do not overtake unless you can do so without risk to yourself or to others...overtake with the minimum of delay.

Cheers Shing. I wont claim to be infallible, however I know it is/was there (had this same argument with someone before and showed them the paragraph). If you're bored later have one more quick look - I think there's a sign for the old end of speed limit (i.e. white back, diagonal stripe) next to it and it on the top left page somewhere... vague I know.

Do you get a buzz out of overtaking? Sauntering not exciting enough?

What kind of argument is that? I was pointing out that there are times when 55 in a 60 is a inconvenience/danger and that you do wish to overtake. You are tryin to make out that I'm a speed freak as can't argue the fact. Who's looking for excitement - all I'm looking for is focus. Focus on the car and everything around you... Ever heard the expression doing something in your sleep? Thats something shouldn't ever be applied to driving.

causal

Boggle wrote:

Funny how everyone says that about common sense. (I have it but no-one else does...!)

It's funny how I never said that, but I did say that commonsesne wasn't common. The point being that person As commonsense doesn't equal person Bs commonsense doesn't equal person Cs etc. so the 'sense' isn't 'common'.

When driving a car you are responsible forwhat happens to you.

Don't you think you're also responsible for how your actions impact on all of the road users around you? Don't you think you're responsible for how your actions impact on your familiy etc?

If you are incapable of using common sense you wont last very long.

Overtaking a line of 3 cars and getting flashed by a Gatso doing 70 in a 50 zone - is that commonsense? - not mine anyway.

Cheers Shing. I wont claim to be infallible, however I know it is/was there (had this same argument with someone before and showed them the paragraph). If you're bored later have one more quick look - I think there's a sign for the old end of speed limit (i.e. white back, diagonal stripe) next to it and it on the top left page somewhere... vague I know.

I didn't find it in the 1979, or the 1992 (the most recent!) versions of the ROTR - see pics below.
In any event, unless you can find something in the statute books that permits breaking the speed limit when overtaking then your statement stands alone and any court will find you guilty as charged.

What kind of argument is that? I was pointing out that there are times when 55 in a 60 is a inconvenience/danger and that you do wish to overtake.

I think we have a different sense of what constitues inconvenience/danger, and also on how to deal with them.
For you inconvenience = doing 55 in a 60 zone - Your stated solution: overtake
For you danger = car ahead braking at bends & for oncoming cars - Your stated solution: overtake
For me 55 in a 60 zone - no problem keep a safe distance.
For me car ahead braking at bends & for oncming cars - danger - keep an extra safety margin - possible learner/drunk/drugged/tired/distracted driver.

You are tryin to make out that I'm a speed freak as can't argue the fact.

Is it possible that _sometimes_ you are? Did you ever consider acting the way I suggested above to these hazards - or was overtaking the only viable option?

Who's looking for excitement - all I'm looking for is focus. Focus on the car and everything around you... Ever heard the expression doing something in your sleep? Thats something shouldn't ever be applied to driving.

Of course driver attentiveness is critical; but that doesn't equate to driving on edge. Nor does it equate to looking for, as you called it, "a warranted overtaking".


causal

causal

ntl Technical wrote:

Now AFAIK, the ROTR book says that maximum amount of cars you may overtake in one go is 3

unkel wrote:

Can someone confirm this?

I haven't seen it anywhere, nor do I recall such a rule.

It'd have to be very specific in it's application, otherwise if the maximum number of cars you can overtake is 3 then the following situations arise

0) if you're on a dual carriageway/motrway and the traffic in the other lane is moving slower/stopped - you must not pass the 3rd vehicle.
1) on a dual carriageway/motorway when you're in the overtaking lane you must move back to the nearside lane once you've passed 3 cars.
2) if traffic turning left in a filter lane is moving slower/stopped - you must not pass the 3rd vehicle
3) if you're turning left in a filter lane and the traffic in the lane on your right is moving slower/stopped - you must not pass the 3rd vehicle
4) if traffic turning right in a filter lane is moving slower/stopped - you must not pass the 3rd vehicle
5) if you're turning right in a filter lane and the traffic in the lane on your left is moving slower/stopped - you must not pass the 3rd vehicle
6) And then there's bus lanes & cycle tracks - where they overtake rows and rows of cars.

causal

mackerski

unkel wrote:

Now AFAIK, the ROTR book says that maximum amount of cars you may overtake in one go is 3

Can someone confirm this?

I've found it - it's after the page about not walking on the cracks in the pavement so the bears don't get you and before the one about not picking dandelions, 'cos you'd wet the bed.

Dermot

kadman

I reckon your going to need cast iron underpants, new fish,
the boys in the joy are going to love you.

kadman

causal

Boggle wrote:

From memory it clearly states that "The speed limits is 60mph unless overtaking". Now ye can argue this all ye like or ye can go check it up. (New speed limits but book has not been revised yet)
...
. I'll fish out my old book next weekend and give you the details...

So did you find where the ROTR says you can break the speed limit when overtaking ?

causal

Boggle

Hey causal - haven't forgotten but didn't get the chance to fish out the book the weekend(had to put 4 tyres on the car so had that on my mind). I'll present a structured argument (possibly in a new thread) when I do.....

....and that's assuming I'm not wrong of course. Sorry about the delay!
(Anyone know of a post-office in Raheen area in lk??- need a new rotr book!! )

green-blood

keep looking, you wont find it... there is never a time when you are allowed break the speed limits.

Downtime

Boggle wrote:

....and that's assuming I'm not wrong of course. Sorry about the delay!
(Anyone know of a post-office in Raheen area in lk??- need a new rotr book!! )

I hope you aren't but I think you are - you cannot break the speed limit at anytime - noteven when overtaking (as it would be considered dangerous overtaking at excessive speeds).

Boggle

keep looking, you wont find it... there is never a time when you are allowed break the speed limits.

patience.... If it's there then grand, if not then I'll gladly admit my mistake.

causal

Boggle wrote:

patience.... If it's there then grand, if not then I'll gladly admit my mistake.

Any joy?


causal

30-6shooter

Just to update ye all!!!!
Im watching the post like a hawk,,, and half **** meself everytime theres an envelope for me. No sign of a ticket yet, but its not the end of the month yet and my post does be a little late in general out here in the sticks.

I was on that road again, and drove by the Gatso the wkend gone. I was just wondering,,, when i think i was caught, I was on the other side of the road(the side the gatso was on) as i was overtaking and it would have been the front of the car it snapped. I was pulling back onto my side of the road when i saw the flas so i reckon if there was a film in it I might have gotten away with it.

Ill let ye all know anyways.

sceptre

Boggle wrote:

(Anyone know of a post-office in Raheen area in lk??- need a new rotr book!! )

There's one in the shopping centre in Dooradoyle. There's probably one somewhere in Raheen too but they do like to hide these things.

causal

Boggle wrote:

Hey causal - haven't forgotten but didn't get the chance to fish out the book the weekend(had to put 4 tyres on the car so had that on my mind). I'll present a structured argument (possibly in a new thread) when I do.....

....and that's assuming I'm not wrong of course. Sorry about the delay!
(Anyone know of a post-office in Raheen area in lk??- need a new rotr book!! )

*Tumbleweed rolls by*
....
...
..
.

elexes

cormie wrote:

From another thread I was informed it's ok to break the limit if you are overtaking :eek:

yes very ...

jesus ... but in the past most pics have been dismissed from court etc.. cause it wasnt possible to read the reg !

i dont know if the got around this problom yet . also there is ment to be some magic spray that you can buy that will just illuminate the reg beyone readable for the camera .