losing points "without knowing"


Right...so when you do it you're merely "creeping above the limit", and when this unfortunate lady does it, it's "consistent excessive speed". Double standards anyone?
 
...

I must say I agree with Daltonr with regard to :

"Any attempt by Rainday or anyone else to suggest that this woman DESERVES to be disqualified from driving is just silly.
Any suggestion that a system that disqualifies her while dangerous drivers on B roads go unpunished is just nonsense."

But I cant help thinking how nice it is to have RD as the pet AAM troll .


As far as 'over the limit by 1-2 MPH' goes none of the speedos in cars are that accurate. They are all set to show you going faster than you are actually going.


Its a shame you all seem to focus on the laws of the land. Might be a good idea to consider the laws of physics :

If a car and a truck are both doing 40 MPH when they hit head on and if the truck weighs 40 tonnes and the car 1 tonne. what 'effective impact speed' does the car driver experience ?
 
.

If a car and a truck are both doing 40 MPH when they hit head on and if the truck weighs 40 tonnes and the car 1 tonne. what 'effective impact speed' does the car driver experience ?
Click to expand...

Well the initial (combined) speed is 80mph. The final speed is zero. How long does such an impact take? - seconds? Well there is some force involved there when the combined speeds are reduced to zero.

However, I believe that people who tailgate are far more dangerous. I'd rather people travel at 100mph and keep appropriate distance, than do 50, up each other's arses.

Since I'm on a bit of a rant, what *really* annoys me are those biking pguards that go at outrageous speeds. They might be outside the laws of the land, but certainly aren't outside the laws of physics. I couldn't care less if they get injured, but what about the innocents they crash into? Completely irresponsible.
 
Clue..........

The 'effective impact speed' experienced by the car driver is much higher than that experienced by the truck driver.
 
Stone her I say. Who will throw the first stone? . . . Anyone? I don't know how the 'letter of the law' people sleep at night knowing they have sinned. I'd expect them to turn themselves in at their local Garda station, cheque book and driving licence in hand, rather than waiting to be caught.
 
losing points "without knowing"

Don't know if this is of any interest to you but when penalty points were first introduced in the UK they caused the same kind of stir as it is here today.

A very similar case to this ladies came up .. a driver was banned from driving in a single journey from London to Glasgow. He challange the ban and won! His argument being, he wasn't told and had no opportunity to correct his action. His 12 points was reduced to 6, he still learned his lesson and lived to drive (hopefully legally) another day.

BTW I would seriously consider taking a case to court should I feel hard done by however the threat of getting more points should I not be believed is a scarey thought, and probably why most people don't appeal.

Is that fair?
 
BTW I would seriously consider taking a case to court should I feel hard done by however the threat of getting more points should I not be believed is a scarey thought, and probably why most people don't appeal.

Is that fair?
Click to expand...
If there is no deterrent, every chancer in the country will be appealing in the great Irish tradition of making excuses for breaking the law. The rest of us as taxpayers will be paying the costs of these dodgy appeals.

I think it is quite reasonable to have a deterrent to unnecessary appeals.
 
please do the math!

---------------
The 'effective impact speed' experienced by the car driver is much higher than that experienced by the truck driver.
---------------

Ah go on, give us the answer.......
 
The phrase"hard cases make bad laws" springs to mind.
I think the penalty point system is great but people deserve to know when they have got them. This case shows how, in extreme or unusual cases, you can end up with a result that is clearly unfair.
I agree with most of daltonr's comments and agree that on balance the penalty points system is good. I don't think it is fair to blame the ministers concerned for it's failings as no minister for the last 40 years has been able to get a full days work out of the Gardi. It's too easy to blame the government (of any hue) for all our woes; if they do anything it is dangerous social engineering and if they do nothing they are not doing their jobs.
This is 100% the fault of those who are paid to uphold the law and don't.
 
effective impact

MiniDriver:

Presumably you are referring to the momentum of the vehicles at impact?

For 2 vehicles colliding at equal velocity, the heavier will have the greater momentum (mom=mass x velocity).

So, if both vehicles stop dead upon impact, the energy of the heavier vehicle (0.5mv^2) needs to be absorbed by the lighter.

But Newton's law requires that the vehicles will not stop dead, as the forces are unequal, so the smaller vehicle will absorb as much as it can, but will probably travel backwards and disspiate the remaining energy via friction into the road or until it hits something else.

Either that or I've misunderstood your point and just wasted a few minutes typing that...

Question: two vehicles travelling at 60mph each, collide head on. Relative speed at impact = 120mph.

Beam of light travelling in one direction, meets another coming the opposite way. Relative speed = 2 x speed of light? Nope. Stays the same...E=mc^2.

QED
 
?

I think it is quite reasonable to have a deterrent to unnecessary appeals.
Click to expand...

You believe that people should get penalty points for non-driving reasons? Sounds about as fair as the Irish tax system in general.
 
Re: !

I'm sure I creep above the limit more than six times on the average journey.
Click to expand...

And I suspect that you creep above it at the same place near your home almost every journey. If they put a camera at that spot you'll find yourself banned without ever being told that you have been clocked there. Without any opportunity to alter your behaviour.

I do believe that being caught six times is indicitive of consistent excessive speed and it is better for everyones sake (including the driver) that she take a little break from driving.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you if she had received notification and continued to speed. But since she didn't then getting caught six times is indicative of driving in Dublin on big safe dual carriageways.

-Rd
 
Re: !

This issue of not having any chance to modify your behaviour is a non-issue in my books.

There is every chance to modify your behaviour - there are speed limit signs all over the place. These are designed to cause drivers to modify their speed if necessary.

**I know that it is in a different league** but what if you couldn't be prosecuted or punished unless a Garda or someone in authority personally told you that what you were doing was wrong and gave you a chance to stop breaking in somewhere ?

All drivers are aware of speed limits. Some speed limit signs are poorly maintained and may not be visible, but many are not.

z
 
Re: !

Well then let's stop wasting time and money on this penalty points system. We're spending a fortune computerising the system.

Let's disqualify drivers for a first offence.

The Penalty Points system has been shown to be effective precisely because as the points increase the drivers are forced to be more careful.

Of Course Ireland couldn't be content to introduce the best practice of other countries. We had to add the twist the "Some People" learn that they have points, and others don't.

A sort of Penalty Points Lotto system.

I disagree that it's a non issue. It's an issue of some people being punished for the states inability to work the system as intended.

-Rd
 
Re: !

Individuals are being punished for their *systematic* inability to adhere to the system of speed limits in place.

The fact that another related system may be delayed and notifications may take some time to issue does not take away from the fact that the speed limits were systematically broken.

I'm not saying I don't sympathise with the person in question, but I am saying that blaming her losing her license on the delay in notification is silly - she lost her license because she repeatedly broke the speed limit.

When I go out for a drive I immediately think of penalty points and restrict my speed. I don't think "Ah sure I'm still on 0 I can afford to get a few. I will start worrying when I get past 6 points."

z
 
Re: !

When I go out for a drive I immediately think of penalty points and restrict my speed. I don't think "Ah sure I'm still on 0 I can afford to get a few. I will start worrying when I get past 6 points."
Click to expand...

I suspect that if you suddenly found yourself on 6 you would be even more careful. I also suspect that if this woman had been receiving notifications she would still be driving.

I agree that she was speeding, and had she continued to speed after getting notifications then she should be off the road.

But she is only off the road because of the Penalty Points system. Under the old system she certainly would not be off the road.

If the punishment part of the Penalty Points system is going to be applied then I think it's only fair that the notification part of the system should also be in place.

In this instance I would fine the woman the fees for the various offenses, but I would quash all but the first 2 points.

-Rd
 
Re: !

If there is no deterrent, every chancer in the country will be appealing in the great Irish tradition of making excuses for breaking the law. The rest of us as taxpayers will be paying the costs of these dodgy appeals.
Click to expand...

If we apply this philosophy then we should equally punsih planning appeals lost, environmental appeals lost, criminal appeals lost etc. as these also cost us taxpayers.
 
Re: !

I agree, shaek - This principle already applies with civil cases where the loser gets stuck with the legal bill.
 
Creche

"so the smaller vehicle will absorb as much as it can, but will probably travel backwards and disspiate the remaining energy via friction into the road or until it hits something else"

So QED, ignoring crumple zones and the bending of light is it something like 5 MPH for the truck driver and 75MPH for the car driver ?

( in the case of Mini Driver the truck may just go straight over it.....and time will go backwards )
 
Re: !

The whole idea of the PP system was to slow down people, the argument was that driving too fast caused accidents.
If this was the reason then the drivers NEED to know whenthey get PP inorder to insure they don't get more. Of course the guards insted of hideing to catch people on motorways could insted drive the roads at the correct speeds and if anyone is silly enough to pass them out they get done. this is done in england and works.
Also the speed limits need to be revised badly. some roads taht are currently 60zones are dangerous at 40 while roads like the nenagh bypass are 60 when they are long straight streches that could easely be 70.
If the govt wants people to comply with the law they need to use common sense. doing someone for 65 in a 60 zone is crazy there needs to be a 10% buffer.A friend of mine got 4 pp's recently 41 in a 40 zone and 53 in a 50 zone madness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register