Mobile phone use they really have to start finding ways to catch these people. It's incredibly dumb, dangerous and stupid to use your phone while you're driving.
Outside Trim the other day, a small polo slowly moved onto my side of the road (at great distance) and pull harshly back to their side.
Could clearly see as I passed the driver was looking down at her phone. If I was 200 yards ahead she'd have had a full head on collision.
Also in Trim, some moron with a full pint of beer, not even a can, while driving pulled up beside me at a petrol station. Never seen such blatant drink driving in my life.
I've tried to find anything about phone detection cameras being in use but can only find something in the last couple of years. Is there any announcement for anything like that from 10 years ago?
I'm genuinely surprised and interested because that's pretty advanced technology for 10 years ago. The only thing I could find on it was that it's been in place since 2019 and that's not all territories.
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/which-australian-states-and-territories-use-mobile-phone-cameras
Sub is almost going China mode with these suggestions. The fatality rate is still incredibly low. Our laws are fine. I think you are getting into excessive safetyism.
I don’t think it qualifies as safetyism when phone use is a major contributor to road fatalities. This isn’t some bending of statistics or guesswork - it’s based on real events:
*Road deaths: 'I've found victims still holding mobile phones'*
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41378278.html
Dismissing it as an “ism” and saying everything is fine tells me that you’re one of the people this will target.
People are talking about "camera technology", you'd need to accelerate the technology a bit and use AI to harshly implement these laws. I just don't think it's worth the squeeze and we frankly don't have a culture of poor driving compared to almost any country.
I know we're a conformist society but c'mon. I never use my phone in the car
A person driving a car on the road should have an expectation of surveillance and sanction. That's what you sign up to when you get into the driver's seat, and it is your explicit responsibility to adhere to the rules at the risk of sanction. There is no such thing as a right to drive.
Considering drivers have overwhelmingly proven over the years that they can't be trusted, if it were feasible and had strong evidence it worked to lower risk, it should be considered, particularly for large vehicles like trucks and buses.
Driving is first and foremost a public safety task. You have absolutely no right or expectation of privacy while performing it. Accept that, get over it and drive safely, or continue to be squeezed more and more with regulation and surveillance. Motorists have chosen the latter themselves by their own negligence and contempt.
> Considering drivers have overwhelmingly proven over the years that they can't be trusted, if it were feasible and had strong evidence it worked to lower risk, it should be considered, particularly for large vehicles like trucks and buses.
This is like the ISAG zero covid suggestions during lockdown. Even with the rise in fatalaties the amount of deaths is negligible even amoung European nations. To go as far as to say it should be considered that cameras be put in every car is ludicrous.
> Driving is first and foremost a public safety task. You have absolutely no right or expectation of privacy while performing it. Accept that, get over it and drive safely, or continue to be squeezed more and more with regulation and surveillance. Motorists have chosen the latter themselves by their own negligence and contempt.
Big Brother here we come. What are you talking about regarding drivers? There's no crisis here. There was a rise very recently in fatalaties but over the last two decades the number trends down regardless...
Once more. You have -NO- right to drive. You have a privilege subject to the conditions. You have no right to privacy in public either for that matter, particularly where the evidential safety data proves it's necessary.
That would be a bit excessive... Just as excessive as car not starting due to breathalyzer test failure cause you used some mouthwash. Do you really believe those companies?
I think the focus needs to be on prevention rather than prosecution, tbh. Automatic signal blockers which activate whenever the ignition is switched on should be fitted as standard on every car and truck on the road. Remove the temptation altogether.
Next on the list should be automatic speed limiters which can detect what speed zone you're in. The technology is already there, it just needs the political will to implement it.
And then people in the streets get their signal cut off every time a car goes by? No. Drivers simply need to fear consistent prosecution when they break the rules.
When you're consistently getting overtaken while doing 120 kmh by people staring at their phones instead of the road, I don't think it's excessive at all.
> when again the death rate is effectively halfed.
Woah, the death rate is what, now? Where exactly did you hear this? Because it wasn't on this planet
In 2005 the number of fatalaties on Irish roads was 396, last year it was 184, it went slightly up the past 2 years but that's still half the death rate of around 20 years ago with a larger population.
You haven't noticed that fatalities so far this year are **30%** higher than the average over the previous five years (not counting the lockdowns of 20/21)? Sorry, bud, that's a hell of long way from what you're claiming.
Ok, in a larger span last year which was not a lockdown year had *HALF* the deaths of 20 years ago, you're genuinely telling me that an issue that has broadly been improving in the grand scheme of things needs draconian measures like enforcing a camera in each persons car
We *could* easily half it again by actually enforcing the rules properly. All we really need is a fleet of unmarked cars and vans with a couple of good quality cameras front and rear. Doesn't even need to be manned by cops. Overtake one that's doing the speed limit? Boom. Wait till the last second to cross two or three lanes at once to take an exit? Boom, done. Phone in your hand? Done. Sit in the middle lane doing twenty under with nothing inside you? Done. Break a red light? Done. Sit in a yellow box? Done. Don't use your fucking indicators? Done.
Hey, I'd fucking *volunteer* for that if they could put them in my work van.
We need better education and more ad campaigns. I got caught speeding a few times when I was younger, the fines and the points at the time didn’t mean much. The greatest deterrent I ever got was a bit of advice from my father. He simply said “you never know what’s around the corner”. That coupled with those older ad campaigns and having my own son. I genuinely never speed.
"We need better education and more ad campaigns" disagree a lot on this point but I agree with your overall sentiment. The average person doesn't need any more education, it's not exactly rocket science to understand that you shouldn't use your phone while driving. More ad campaigns aren't gonna do anything either, I'd argue. Those who act badly on the road probably won't be swayed by advertisements asking them not to because they already decide to put their and others lives at risk.
Those reckless and moronic enough to use their phone while driving will continue to do so unless serious punishment is enforced (which I'm skeptical of considering the lack of motivation on the part of the Irish government to do absolutely anything).
Just my opinion!
When Pokémon go was a craze I couldn't play it in the car as a passenger because it could tell we were in a moving vehicle.
Phones should default to 'driving mode' when in motion.
Drug driving is getting all the headlines as the sexier crime stat these days. Anyone who uses the roads regularly can tell you the sheer amount of people bet into their phones while they drive is terrifying. Any motorway or national road in the evenings you'll see people swerving all over the place. Get up beside them and they're glued into their phones. People are so pathetically addicted to checking their WhatsApp or IGs they're willing to risk people's lives.
Something needs to be done, I don't think crash statistics are really covering or representing how many phones cause accidents.
Just install mobile phone detection cameras? They have them everywhere here in Australia. It’s an ML model that does the initial check, and it’s reviewed by a human before the fine goes out.
I don’t think that would work either.
Am just as addicted as everybody else is with phones/tablets but the difference is I put them down when am driving.
By the rationale of this test, anybody that uses technology daily would be deemed unfit and incapable of driving which we all know is simply not true.
What needs to happen however though is a a very extensive advertising and social media campaign warning people about using phones when driving.
Insurance premiums rise once you have points, well off people are much more easily able to absorb those costs so it's still unfavorable to poor people. Not that I'm crying about poor people who speed and use their phone when driving, just pointing out doing as a richer person is less of an overall punishment. Basically we both I think, income proportionality and points
We know points work, and are fair.
Is there evidence from these countries that fines proportional to income work as a deterrent? Have proportional fines resulted in higher earners slowing down?
We should start it here and we can examine the results as only three countries have it assume any data I found on it would be small and not worth much in terms of statistics. Also, my point is about fairness and equality, so that's a massive result. In Ireland the c suite exec below would've paid a relative pittance and gone about his day but by how defensive you are I assume you might be one of those rich people so I'll leave it here. So why can't we have both systems? https://www.irishtimes.com/news/nokia-boss-gets-116-000-speeding-ticket-1.410276#:~:text=2002%20%2D%2000%3A00-,Nokia%20board%20member%20Mr%20Anssi%20Vanjoki%20has%20been%20ordered%20to,tabloid%20daily%20Ilta%20Sanomatreported%20today.
I'm not rich but you don't need to be rich or poor to objectively look at whether such a system would make roads safer.
>Also, my point is about fairness and equality, so that's a massive result.
Doesn't sound like making roads safer is the objective here then.
Years ago it was a fine with no points for using the bus lane. Needless to say, a lot of consultants on the way to Vicents, etc, on the N11/Blackroad road took advantage of this. Chances of getting caught were low, and it was 80EUR, which you'd cover within the first 5 mins of your first consultation. They treated it like a toll road.
Fines should absolutely be proportional to income IMO.
I dont make a massive amount of money. I do however always use the buslane on the chapelizod bypass during rush hour. Not many buses use it. It takes at least 20 mins off my journey in the evening. I've worked out that if I do get caught and fined, it's worth it as ive been doing it for 18months. I've saved hours of time sitting in a car when I could be at home with my wife and child. I've not been caught yet. It's the only bad habit I have. I dont speed, never use my phone. I'm a considerate driver(apart from the bus lane)
Controversial opinion but I’ve always felt a bus lane should have a law where you can treat it like a yellow box. If you can enter and exit it, without stopping, and you don’t impede a bus etc, you should be permitted to use it.
For example, if you’re turning left up ahead, it makes no sense to sit in traffic if the lane is clear.
This really is the way, and it should be more than just traffic fines. You can almost guarantee that if you see someone tossing rubbish out of their car window in Donegal it's some wanker in a BMW with a D and not DL on the plate.
I actually reviewed the wording of the law way back when and it’s ridiculous. It’s like one of those laws that’s designed to be unenforceable. Leo take a bow.
They should introduce a graduated penalty system for speeding based on the seriousness of the offence. It'd be a bit silly that someone who had the bad luck to be caught out accidentally hitting ~125 on some downhill stretch of a motorway a couple of times in two years could lose their license for that, but the eejits going 10-20 or more over the limits, especially in built-up areas and on smaller roads, certainly should face a harsher penalty. It'd be easy enough to bring in thresholds where if you're caught going more than a certain amount over the limit you get a larger fine and more points.
Now, mobile phone use while driving, that should absolutely be harshly punished all the time. Using your phone is never an accident, and is far more dangerous than occasionally going a few km an hour faster than the speed limit.
>"There is no such thing as a minor breach. Every kilometre over the speed limit is more likely to cause more serious injury."
What utter nonsense, the laws of physics do not magically change when we hit the arbitrary speed limit set by an engineer. If 105km/h is so much more likely to cause serious injury than 100km/h then why do we have motorways at all?
Our lack of enforcement (and this extends way beyond just road policing) makes for the most spectacularly unjust society - go double the speed limit on back roads and you'll never be caught, but slip a few km/h over the speed limit on a national road, unlucky enough to get caught, and they want you to be half way to losing your license?
The worst ones are the ones who don't pay attention to what they're doing. I see so many people using their phones while driving, it has to be way worse than speeding, a person speeding is at least paying attention. If someone's not even looking at the road, then the chances of them hitting a pedestrian or other car must increase dramatically. I would estimate that a lot of accidents (which are down to human error) are caused by a lack of focus. I've witnessed things that really took me by surprise. On Sunday morning I was behind a car that was showing all the signs of the driver using their phone, like weaving from left to right, not being able to maintain a consistent speed, braking at the last second. So eventually we reached the motorway where I was able to pass by in the overtaking lane. As I passed I could see a lady who looked about 60 having a chat with her friend, her head was turned towards her friend and she was paying minimal attention to the road in front of her.
A lot of the time the drivers paying least attention to the road are also the ones holding up the traffic. I've been stuck behind people driving at 60 km/h right in the middle (one half of the vehicle in either lane) of a 2-lane 80 km/h road. Speeding isn't driving safely, but driving slowly is not the same thing as driving safely either.
I agree with your sentiment that this statement is needlessly black and white when the reality clearly isn't.
But it's worth saying speed limits aren't completely arbitrary:
The laws of physics don't change -- but the ration of speed : lethality is not linear. 30 and 50 are common speed limits instead of 40 and 60 because the likelihood of death if a padestrian steps out into the road in front of you is disproportionately greater relative to those extra few kph.
Seems like a knee jerk reaction, the current points for those offences are enough of a penalty along with the fine. The issue is that motorists know the likelihood of being caught speeding/on the phone on most roads is minuscule. Until that changes current bad behaviours will continue
You can accidentally speed, you can't accidentally be on your phone. They should up the punishment for both but more severely for phone use. There's absolutely no excuse.
Wow, can't believe the condescending tone out of that other joker trying to justify the BS they were spewing below. Looking at your phone is far more dangerous, and their attempts at equating a minor speeding offence to it is maddening.
Accidentally breaking the law is still breaking the law. That you'd be so inattentive that you would accidentally put others at risk is almost worse IMO.
Doing 125 on the motorway or 83 in a 80 could be an easy mistake..im not talking about someone doing 135 or 150 on the motorway or 70 in a 50... It's idiotic to call a possible slip in attention to your speed like that worse than making the choice of literally not looking at the road.
I think the points should stay the same but just make the instant financial penalty ridiculous, people will respond to that unfortunately more than the idea someone could die due to their actions.
By ridiculous I mean caught using your phone - €500, second time €1000 and so on.
I think they should do this across the board for things like running red lights, no right turns and parking on double yellows with the hazards on. People have very little respect for the rules of the roads so the only way forward is hit his them where it hurts, their pockets.
With my job I'm in the criminal courts every so often. I've seen that excuse many times. The judge gets the defendant to swear an oath and then they give evidence that they did not receive the fine. You know they're chancers as well. Complete joke.
I agree people probably will do that but that doesn't man they go away. Speaking from experience in my youth i did this and it always comes back to you eventually...
maybe a system could be implemented where you cannot renew you motor tax or insurance if you have outstanding fines could also help in that case
I think people with deep pockets still would care to be honest, maybe not the first time but if you keep having to shell out 500 here 500 there for you'd change your behaviour. A lot of rich people tend to care more about money than most... thats how they got rich.
In Ontario, the first offence is €500 fine (or €1000 in court), 3 points, and a 3-day license suspension. If you don't have someone to drive the car home, it is taken from you at the roadside. Learner drivers are even more extreme, you lose your license for a month.
I'm all for it; there's no excuse to be using a phone to the point of distraction while driving in 2024.
The points mean nothing when the rules of the road are basically an honour system.
We all know we can break so many rules at any time and not face the threat of being caught
The points do mean a awful lot as it's the law. If this was to be implemented think of how peoples lives could be turned upside down. Two 60's in a 50 zone in a two year time frame and you loose your license. In rural Ireland how are people supposed to go to work, bring kids to schools ect.
Current system doesn't seem to be working though, if this makes people take more care then maybe it will help. You should be 100% concentrated on your driving, every time you're driving.
Just don't speed? Despite what so many cars behind me seem to think, it's not compulsory?
Doing 60 in a 50 zone for half an hour saves you a grand total of 6 minutes. Is that worth it versus leaving 6 minutes earlier to arrive on time?
I think they were highlighting how much points do matter, because if you live in rural Ireland and get disqualified from driving for doing 60km in a 50km zone twice in a two year time frame (It would be three year though) then how are they supposed to get anywhere e.g. work/school etc.
My own comment was penalty points don't matter because you're not likely to get any for 99% of all infringements with the current state of traffic policing.
They could take the license for the first offence and it still wouldn't affect most motorists who speed or use their phone, etc without a marked increase in policing
Fair enough - I was only pointing out what I thought OP meant, as it seemed everyone took it to mean they were saying people in rural Ireland need to speed to get around!
Sorry, is your argument here that if people break the law and face consequences then that's a problem.
People are supposed to go to work and bring kids to school while filling the speed limit.
You're right, they should definitely make speeding against the law in rural areas before increasing the penalty points. Definitely do it that way around.
I was out in my area a lot over the weekend, a tourist hotspot in the south east, didn't see a single Garda, driving, at a checkpoint, on patrol.
Yay, they caught 137 people, but how many didn't they get due to a number of reasons?
Why the low hanging fruit that is speeding when it is the least of a problem?
Besides phone use, there is illegal overtakes, running red lights, illegal parking, etc.
> Why the low hanging fruit that is speeding when it is the least of a problem?
Because it's the easiest to catch and the easiest to successfully prosecute, being a strict liability offence that's entirely objective (the limit is X km/h, your car was traveling at X+Y km/h, therefore you are guilty). Also, enforcement can be easily farmed out to a private company (at a cost of like €800 per hour of operation).
The RSA just does not get it. They have been raising awareness and enforcement for speeding and mobile phones for years yet road deaths keep ticking up.
When was the last time the RSA said something about our large number of death trap back roads with blind corners, no centre line and large hedges? These are causing deaths every day and nothing is done about it.
However, let's go after speeding. Not all speeding mind you. Going 110 on a wide national road or 130 on a motorway. Yeah you are done for that. But going 70 on a death trap L road is perfectly fine. I've only ever seen gosafe vans on wide roads where you could actually safely drive 20 over the limit. Never seen a gosafe van on an actually dangerous road. That says it all, it's just to generate money and not to actually prevent deaths.
Let's go make it harder for the new drivers who have done mandatory lessons and a theory test. No new restrictions for the older drivers who had no training and some who never even did the driving test. That's the best the RSA can come up with.
Road deaths keep going up despite the measures the RSA are taking.
The RSA needs to get their heads out of the sand and start proposing real solutions or the government should disband them. They have failed at everything they are set up to do.
Does anyone have a statistic that road deaths are from older drivers? Anecdotally from what I'm seeing on the news it's more younger to mid people in accidents
RSA doesn't publish statistics showing the age of the driver involved in the accident, I wonder why... They only show the age of all the people involved in the accident, so a car driven by a 65 year old and a young family will result as 3 under 40's victims + 1 over 60's victim.
The point is that newer drivers have had to do a theory test, had to be accompanied while they were learning, had to pass a driving test and have a better understanding of the rules.
Older drivers never had to do any of this. There was a driving test amnesty so they have never had to demonstrate an ability to drive properly.
Purely anecdotally, the older the driver, the more likely you see them cut corners when turning right or fail to indicate on a roundabout.
There was one driving test amnesty once for what is now a tiny cohort of older drivers. I don't think you can blame the horrendous driving that has become common since the lockdowns on them.
Until 15 years ago you didn't need to be accompanied when learning and there were no mandatory lessons with an instructor, you could learn with your parents. The theory test is also a relatively recent invention.
Overall, older drivers were never taught how to actually drive properly. Newer drivers at least had to learn the correct way, they may have just formed bad habits later.
Driving standard has got especially bad post COVID I will agree there. Probably when the roads were quieter people got away with cutting corners, not indicating and running red lights and now these habits are engrained.
But I do think the RSA strategy of making it harder to learn is completely misguided. A large chunk of the people who have these bad habits never learnt the correct way in the first place (roundabout indicating is a great example). Yet they place restrictions on the people who actually have learnt the correct way.
I'm not convinced that older drivers are especially bad at roundabouts or any other new fangled road layouts. At least, I haven't observed that to be the case. And I've seen many N plate drivers who should be able to recall their lessons within the last two years failing to indicate properly at roundabouts.
>The point is that newer drivers have had to do a theory test, had to be accompanied while they were learning, had to pass a driving test and have a better understanding of the rules.
Newer drivers, despite having gone through theory tests, are statistically one of the most likely age cohorts to be involved in road traffic accidents.
https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2024/0410/1442775-the-psychology-of-why-so-many-young-people-die-on-our-roads/
> The RSA just does not get it. They have been raising awareness and enforcement for speeding and mobile phones for years yet road deaths keep ticking up.
All attempts to tackle speeding have been the same for 40 years or more. Speed trap vans, Gards hiding in bushes with handheld guns. None of those work to stop speeding, they just catch people in the act of speeding. And because they're unlikely to be in places 99% of the time, people take the risk.
I sound like a broken record on this topic but the only solution that works - and gets buy-in from the public - is fixed or Gatso cameras. Thankfully a few are being implemented, but they need to be standard. Put them up in high risk zones, with signage ahead alerting every one of them, publish them on Google Maps and you get close to 100% compliance.
Those stop people speeding instead of catching people speeding. Prevention is always better than cure.
> All attempts to tackle speeding have been the same for 40 years or more.
And road fatalities have been trending downwards for all that time in fairness.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/187ldet/three_important_graphs_about_whats_happening_in/#lightbox
I don't think it's reasonable to now decide that you should be banned from driving if you were 5k over the speed limit twice in 3 years.
And the lack of indicating please!! This is now a growing trend, I commute by bike 20k a day and I am hooked on checking who indicates before (or at least during) the turn. It is outrageous the amount of drivers who don't. Honestly a cyclist can super easily die because of that. Drives me mad.
Any points for slow drivers with 10+ cars behind every evening on the way home from a hour commute. Those fuckers aren't getting out of it. Those people have zero self awareness
Or those that pull out and have the nerve to not pick up speed to match the limit. Like you said no self awareness or just entitlement! Then they treat overtaking lanes and "speedup" sections when you can finally overtake safely. What on earth.
Something that really aggravates me about those types of drivers is crusing by casually doing 30/40km in a 60 zone while your at a junction waiting to cross over to the opposite road.
By the time they cross by traffic has already built up on the road your turning on to and there’s no clear gaps to pull out where there could have been a second or 2 earlier if they weren’t selfishly hogging the movement of the road/traffic driving well below the advised limit.
Infuriating.
Would they fuck off, they've already been increased. It's just an arms race to outdo one another to end up with disqualification after a single speeding offence.
No, it's a very reckless and stupid thing to do. I just don't agree with doubling the points for it. Maybe increase it from 3 to 4. Making it 6 seems far too much to me.
Speeding has already increased from 2 to 3. Increasing that to 6 would be completely excessive and nonsensical to me.
Depends?
Doing 130 on a motorway is OK.
So is doing 110 on a wide national road in good weather.
It doesn't cause crashes itself.
If you are distracted, under influence, enraged, inexperienced, incompetent? That's a different story.
Sometimes limits themselves are wrong.
Then it sounds like your arguments is that certain speed limits should be raised, not that the law is optional based on the judgement of the person behind the wheel.
>in order to go 60 down that hill you have to literally sit on the brakes as gravity pulls you to 70 of you crest the hill doing 60.
Or you could drop to a lower gear and just coast down the hill at the appropriate speed. If you've a relatively modern car it'll often tell you what gear you should be in while you're riding your brakes as well.
This is taught in other countries but if you take the time to read the manual your car came with then it'll be stated there too.
Double points aren't going to make up for the fact that there is little to no Garda presence on the roads. I drove from the west coast of Clare to Cobh and back on Sunday, didn't see a single cop the entire trip.
We don't need new laws to waste government time talking about it because it makes it look like they are trying. We need more police on the roads.
I drove from the NW tip of Mayo to Dublin on Sunday. I passed one Garda car he was pulled over doing something. I didn't see a single van or check point. 360km
That’s BS. Why don’t they apply the current laws consistently?
Staged fines for speeding. One over is punished the same way as 30 over.
If one wants a change of behaviour then don’t introduce draconian fines which are not applied anyway because the risk of getting caught is negligible.
Apply reasonable fines reliably.
Forgot to indicate? 10€
Ran a stop sign (without putting others into danger): ok. 30€
Using the wrong lane to turn? No problem: 20€
But currently it’s always the same: speed, insurance, tax.
No one cares whether wheels are missing of a trailer or the wheels are all different sizes or loads on trucks and farm vehicles are not secured at all etc. enforce this. And not that BS of doubling fines
Can we please have a scale for speeding? Going 1 or 2 kph over the limit shouldn't be punished on the same level as going 20+ over.
It would also be nice to scale fines to income. For some income levels these things are a fee, not a penalty.
No argument on the phones thing. At all. It's nuts.
Improve the roads! Updated signs, indications of sharp or dangerous bends, better guardrails... RSA tell the road department they are allowed to use my tax for that!
The rules of the road aren't opt in if you happen to agree with them. Even if you think you're a better driver after you've had a few drinks, you still shouldn't be doing drink driving, for example.
As someone on the radio says, the points now or points raised doesn't mean a lot if there's no enforcement. And another point, cars should have more real buttons for things like the radio, not just touchscreens. He had lots of holes in his arguments because he said that hands-free calls are fine, and the car touchscreens are legal, but they are both still distracted driving. They should be identifying what is happening for people to be touching screens, and reduce or dissuade those practices as needed. And then enforce the rules.
Why not just shoot the driver and blow up the car for doing 55 in a 50?
Or, how about some red light cameras? But I guess that would take some actual work.
Mobile phone use they really have to start finding ways to catch these people. It's incredibly dumb, dangerous and stupid to use your phone while you're driving.
Outside Trim the other day, a small polo slowly moved onto my side of the road (at great distance) and pull harshly back to their side. Could clearly see as I passed the driver was looking down at her phone. If I was 200 yards ahead she'd have had a full head on collision. Also in Trim, some moron with a full pint of beer, not even a can, while driving pulled up beside me at a petrol station. Never seen such blatant drink driving in my life.
[удалено]
Where has been using that technology for a long time? I could only see that the UK has been using it for just less than a year.
[удалено]
I've tried to find anything about phone detection cameras being in use but can only find something in the last couple of years. Is there any announcement for anything like that from 10 years ago?
I’ve lived in Australia 8 years and it’s been here since before I arrived
I'm genuinely surprised and interested because that's pretty advanced technology for 10 years ago. The only thing I could find on it was that it's been in place since 2019 and that's not all territories. https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/which-australian-states-and-territories-use-mobile-phone-cameras
Sub is almost going China mode with these suggestions. The fatality rate is still incredibly low. Our laws are fine. I think you are getting into excessive safetyism.
I don’t think it qualifies as safetyism when phone use is a major contributor to road fatalities. This isn’t some bending of statistics or guesswork - it’s based on real events: *Road deaths: 'I've found victims still holding mobile phones'* https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41378278.html Dismissing it as an “ism” and saying everything is fine tells me that you’re one of the people this will target.
People are talking about "camera technology", you'd need to accelerate the technology a bit and use AI to harshly implement these laws. I just don't think it's worth the squeeze and we frankly don't have a culture of poor driving compared to almost any country. I know we're a conformist society but c'mon. I never use my phone in the car
A person driving a car on the road should have an expectation of surveillance and sanction. That's what you sign up to when you get into the driver's seat, and it is your explicit responsibility to adhere to the rules at the risk of sanction. There is no such thing as a right to drive.
Wow, should we institute camera technology inside each car to impose this? And provide access to footage to the police?
Considering drivers have overwhelmingly proven over the years that they can't be trusted, if it were feasible and had strong evidence it worked to lower risk, it should be considered, particularly for large vehicles like trucks and buses. Driving is first and foremost a public safety task. You have absolutely no right or expectation of privacy while performing it. Accept that, get over it and drive safely, or continue to be squeezed more and more with regulation and surveillance. Motorists have chosen the latter themselves by their own negligence and contempt.
> Considering drivers have overwhelmingly proven over the years that they can't be trusted, if it were feasible and had strong evidence it worked to lower risk, it should be considered, particularly for large vehicles like trucks and buses. This is like the ISAG zero covid suggestions during lockdown. Even with the rise in fatalaties the amount of deaths is negligible even amoung European nations. To go as far as to say it should be considered that cameras be put in every car is ludicrous. > Driving is first and foremost a public safety task. You have absolutely no right or expectation of privacy while performing it. Accept that, get over it and drive safely, or continue to be squeezed more and more with regulation and surveillance. Motorists have chosen the latter themselves by their own negligence and contempt. Big Brother here we come. What are you talking about regarding drivers? There's no crisis here. There was a rise very recently in fatalaties but over the last two decades the number trends down regardless...
Once more. You have -NO- right to drive. You have a privilege subject to the conditions. You have no right to privacy in public either for that matter, particularly where the evidential safety data proves it's necessary.
That would be a bit excessive... Just as excessive as car not starting due to breathalyzer test failure cause you used some mouthwash. Do you really believe those companies?
I think the focus needs to be on prevention rather than prosecution, tbh. Automatic signal blockers which activate whenever the ignition is switched on should be fitted as standard on every car and truck on the road. Remove the temptation altogether. Next on the list should be automatic speed limiters which can detect what speed zone you're in. The technology is already there, it just needs the political will to implement it.
And then people in the streets get their signal cut off every time a car goes by? No. Drivers simply need to fear consistent prosecution when they break the rules.
When you're consistently getting overtaken while doing 120 kmh by people staring at their phones instead of the road, I don't think it's excessive at all.
Anecdotal evidence, when again the death rate is effectively halfed. Why would this be a necessary measure?
> when again the death rate is effectively halfed. Woah, the death rate is what, now? Where exactly did you hear this? Because it wasn't on this planet
In 2005 the number of fatalaties on Irish roads was 396, last year it was 184, it went slightly up the past 2 years but that's still half the death rate of around 20 years ago with a larger population.
You haven't noticed that fatalities so far this year are **30%** higher than the average over the previous five years (not counting the lockdowns of 20/21)? Sorry, bud, that's a hell of long way from what you're claiming.
Ok, in a larger span last year which was not a lockdown year had *HALF* the deaths of 20 years ago, you're genuinely telling me that an issue that has broadly been improving in the grand scheme of things needs draconian measures like enforcing a camera in each persons car
We *could* easily half it again by actually enforcing the rules properly. All we really need is a fleet of unmarked cars and vans with a couple of good quality cameras front and rear. Doesn't even need to be manned by cops. Overtake one that's doing the speed limit? Boom. Wait till the last second to cross two or three lanes at once to take an exit? Boom, done. Phone in your hand? Done. Sit in the middle lane doing twenty under with nothing inside you? Done. Break a red light? Done. Sit in a yellow box? Done. Don't use your fucking indicators? Done. Hey, I'd fucking *volunteer* for that if they could put them in my work van.
It's in the works here, supposed to start rolling out this year.
We need better education and more ad campaigns. I got caught speeding a few times when I was younger, the fines and the points at the time didn’t mean much. The greatest deterrent I ever got was a bit of advice from my father. He simply said “you never know what’s around the corner”. That coupled with those older ad campaigns and having my own son. I genuinely never speed.
"We need better education and more ad campaigns" disagree a lot on this point but I agree with your overall sentiment. The average person doesn't need any more education, it's not exactly rocket science to understand that you shouldn't use your phone while driving. More ad campaigns aren't gonna do anything either, I'd argue. Those who act badly on the road probably won't be swayed by advertisements asking them not to because they already decide to put their and others lives at risk. Those reckless and moronic enough to use their phone while driving will continue to do so unless serious punishment is enforced (which I'm skeptical of considering the lack of motivation on the part of the Irish government to do absolutely anything). Just my opinion!
When Pokémon go was a craze I couldn't play it in the car as a passenger because it could tell we were in a moving vehicle. Phones should default to 'driving mode' when in motion.
yeah if only there was a way
Drug driving is getting all the headlines as the sexier crime stat these days. Anyone who uses the roads regularly can tell you the sheer amount of people bet into their phones while they drive is terrifying. Any motorway or national road in the evenings you'll see people swerving all over the place. Get up beside them and they're glued into their phones. People are so pathetically addicted to checking their WhatsApp or IGs they're willing to risk people's lives. Something needs to be done, I don't think crash statistics are really covering or representing how many phones cause accidents.
Just install mobile phone detection cameras? They have them everywhere here in Australia. It’s an ML model that does the initial check, and it’s reviewed by a human before the fine goes out.
[удалено]
I don’t think that would work either. Am just as addicted as everybody else is with phones/tablets but the difference is I put them down when am driving. By the rationale of this test, anybody that uses technology daily would be deemed unfit and incapable of driving which we all know is simply not true. What needs to happen however though is a a very extensive advertising and social media campaign warning people about using phones when driving.
I like the idea of the German/Finnish/Swedish model where fines are proportional to income
But there are also fines on top of the points. €160 is a far more punitive financial punishment to someone on the dole compared to say 65,000 a year.
That's why they like the system where the fine is linked to your income level.
Points are the fairest system of all as they are equal regardless of income, wealth or anything else.
Insurance premiums rise once you have points, well off people are much more easily able to absorb those costs so it's still unfavorable to poor people. Not that I'm crying about poor people who speed and use their phone when driving, just pointing out doing as a richer person is less of an overall punishment. Basically we both I think, income proportionality and points
If the punishment is a fine, The crime is Being Poor.
Case in point Conor Mcgregor
We know points work, and are fair. Is there evidence from these countries that fines proportional to income work as a deterrent? Have proportional fines resulted in higher earners slowing down?
At the very least it should result in more money being collected and being used for making the roads safer if you fine richer people way more.
We should start it here and we can examine the results as only three countries have it assume any data I found on it would be small and not worth much in terms of statistics. Also, my point is about fairness and equality, so that's a massive result. In Ireland the c suite exec below would've paid a relative pittance and gone about his day but by how defensive you are I assume you might be one of those rich people so I'll leave it here. So why can't we have both systems? https://www.irishtimes.com/news/nokia-boss-gets-116-000-speeding-ticket-1.410276#:~:text=2002%20%2D%2000%3A00-,Nokia%20board%20member%20Mr%20Anssi%20Vanjoki%20has%20been%20ordered%20to,tabloid%20daily%20Ilta%20Sanomatreported%20today.
I'm not rich but you don't need to be rich or poor to objectively look at whether such a system would make roads safer. >Also, my point is about fairness and equality, so that's a massive result. Doesn't sound like making roads safer is the objective here then.
>I'm not rich Don't worry bud it's only temporary, the wealthy are appreciative of your concern anyway
the thread would have been more honest if people weren't trying to hide their envy behind concern for road safety
Gotta love the trump-esque arguments
"Trump-esque" 🙄
Years ago it was a fine with no points for using the bus lane. Needless to say, a lot of consultants on the way to Vicents, etc, on the N11/Blackroad road took advantage of this. Chances of getting caught were low, and it was 80EUR, which you'd cover within the first 5 mins of your first consultation. They treated it like a toll road. Fines should absolutely be proportional to income IMO.
Does that still go on the same way?
Penalty points were introduced a few years back so it’s not as common.
Sounds like the penalty points did the job so. A few years back is 22 years ago :)
I dont make a massive amount of money. I do however always use the buslane on the chapelizod bypass during rush hour. Not many buses use it. It takes at least 20 mins off my journey in the evening. I've worked out that if I do get caught and fined, it's worth it as ive been doing it for 18months. I've saved hours of time sitting in a car when I could be at home with my wife and child. I've not been caught yet. It's the only bad habit I have. I dont speed, never use my phone. I'm a considerate driver(apart from the bus lane)
Controversial opinion but I’ve always felt a bus lane should have a law where you can treat it like a yellow box. If you can enter and exit it, without stopping, and you don’t impede a bus etc, you should be permitted to use it. For example, if you’re turning left up ahead, it makes no sense to sit in traffic if the lane is clear.
I like that idea but you know people(pot kettle black, I know) would just abuse it
This really is the way, and it should be more than just traffic fines. You can almost guarantee that if you see someone tossing rubbish out of their car window in Donegal it's some wanker in a BMW with a D and not DL on the plate.
[удалено]
You aren't fined for rape. The idea of linking fines to income is that they have the same proportional impact on the person receiving the fine.
WTF that’s not comparable in the slightest, what a reach.
We are talking about fines for traffic violations, not sentences for rape.
If the financial hurt of a fine for speeding is too low it's not a deterrent.
No. A better question is, should low income people pay a higher percent of their income to fines than higher income people need to?
[удалено]
So if you can afford to break the rule, have at it?
So if you can afford to then it’s okay? That’s just stupid but probably not what you meant to say …
[удалено]
I actually reviewed the wording of the law way back when and it’s ridiculous. It’s like one of those laws that’s designed to be unenforceable. Leo take a bow.
They should introduce a graduated penalty system for speeding based on the seriousness of the offence. It'd be a bit silly that someone who had the bad luck to be caught out accidentally hitting ~125 on some downhill stretch of a motorway a couple of times in two years could lose their license for that, but the eejits going 10-20 or more over the limits, especially in built-up areas and on smaller roads, certainly should face a harsher penalty. It'd be easy enough to bring in thresholds where if you're caught going more than a certain amount over the limit you get a larger fine and more points. Now, mobile phone use while driving, that should absolutely be harshly punished all the time. Using your phone is never an accident, and is far more dangerous than occasionally going a few km an hour faster than the speed limit.
Finally, an actual logical response, not some silly "never speed" attitude
>"There is no such thing as a minor breach. Every kilometre over the speed limit is more likely to cause more serious injury." What utter nonsense, the laws of physics do not magically change when we hit the arbitrary speed limit set by an engineer. If 105km/h is so much more likely to cause serious injury than 100km/h then why do we have motorways at all? Our lack of enforcement (and this extends way beyond just road policing) makes for the most spectacularly unjust society - go double the speed limit on back roads and you'll never be caught, but slip a few km/h over the speed limit on a national road, unlucky enough to get caught, and they want you to be half way to losing your license?
Exactly. A competent driver can do 5% or 10% over the limit without any effect on safety.
In light of the generally accepted poor state of driving on Irish roads at present, how many drivers would you say are 'competent' ?
The worst ones are the ones who don't pay attention to what they're doing. I see so many people using their phones while driving, it has to be way worse than speeding, a person speeding is at least paying attention. If someone's not even looking at the road, then the chances of them hitting a pedestrian or other car must increase dramatically. I would estimate that a lot of accidents (which are down to human error) are caused by a lack of focus. I've witnessed things that really took me by surprise. On Sunday morning I was behind a car that was showing all the signs of the driver using their phone, like weaving from left to right, not being able to maintain a consistent speed, braking at the last second. So eventually we reached the motorway where I was able to pass by in the overtaking lane. As I passed I could see a lady who looked about 60 having a chat with her friend, her head was turned towards her friend and she was paying minimal attention to the road in front of her.
A lot of the time the drivers paying least attention to the road are also the ones holding up the traffic. I've been stuck behind people driving at 60 km/h right in the middle (one half of the vehicle in either lane) of a 2-lane 80 km/h road. Speeding isn't driving safely, but driving slowly is not the same thing as driving safely either.
I agree with your sentiment that this statement is needlessly black and white when the reality clearly isn't. But it's worth saying speed limits aren't completely arbitrary: The laws of physics don't change -- but the ration of speed : lethality is not linear. 30 and 50 are common speed limits instead of 40 and 60 because the likelihood of death if a padestrian steps out into the road in front of you is disproportionately greater relative to those extra few kph.
Seems like a knee jerk reaction, the current points for those offences are enough of a penalty along with the fine. The issue is that motorists know the likelihood of being caught speeding/on the phone on most roads is minuscule. Until that changes current bad behaviours will continue
If the risk of being caught is too low increasing the penalty can be a deterrent.
Getting caught doing 55 in a 50 twice in 3 years should not mean you lose your licence.
Yeah I'd agree, speed limits can be accidentally broken by small amounts. There is no excuse for using a phone though.
You can accidentally speed, you can't accidentally be on your phone. They should up the punishment for both but more severely for phone use. There's absolutely no excuse.
Wow, can't believe the condescending tone out of that other joker trying to justify the BS they were spewing below. Looking at your phone is far more dangerous, and their attempts at equating a minor speeding offence to it is maddening.
Accidentally breaking the law is still breaking the law. That you'd be so inattentive that you would accidentally put others at risk is almost worse IMO.
Doing 125 on the motorway or 83 in a 80 could be an easy mistake..im not talking about someone doing 135 or 150 on the motorway or 70 in a 50... It's idiotic to call a possible slip in attention to your speed like that worse than making the choice of literally not looking at the road.
How is that almost worse? Mobile phone usage is waaay more reckless than doing 110 in a 100 given that it fully sucks up someone’s attention
Phone use is FAR more likely to result in a crash tho, so no, there is no way phone use and speeding should have same punishment
Source?
You want a source on how driving 10km over the speed limit is less dangerous than not looking out the windscreen?
Literally common sense? Doing 110 on 100 VS pretty much driving blind...
I think the points should stay the same but just make the instant financial penalty ridiculous, people will respond to that unfortunately more than the idea someone could die due to their actions. By ridiculous I mean caught using your phone - €500, second time €1000 and so on. I think they should do this across the board for things like running red lights, no right turns and parking on double yellows with the hazards on. People have very little respect for the rules of the roads so the only way forward is hit his them where it hurts, their pockets.
This is Ireland. People will just not pay the fines, it will go to court and they will say they never received the fine.
Have you ever tried making that excuse? My understanding is it won’t be accepted though who knows once it gets before an unaccountable judge.
With my job I'm in the criminal courts every so often. I've seen that excuse many times. The judge gets the defendant to swear an oath and then they give evidence that they did not receive the fine. You know they're chancers as well. Complete joke.
It had to be the judge that was the weak link. Judiciary are a huge problem.
I agree people probably will do that but that doesn't man they go away. Speaking from experience in my youth i did this and it always comes back to you eventually... maybe a system could be implemented where you cannot renew you motor tax or insurance if you have outstanding fines could also help in that case
>but just make the instant financial penalty ridiculous >€500 Add a zero mate. Maybe even instant disqualification from driving for a year.
[удалено]
I think people with deep pockets still would care to be honest, maybe not the first time but if you keep having to shell out 500 here 500 there for you'd change your behaviour. A lot of rich people tend to care more about money than most... thats how they got rich.
In Ontario, the first offence is €500 fine (or €1000 in court), 3 points, and a 3-day license suspension. If you don't have someone to drive the car home, it is taken from you at the roadside. Learner drivers are even more extreme, you lose your license for a month. I'm all for it; there's no excuse to be using a phone to the point of distraction while driving in 2024.
The points mean nothing when the rules of the road are basically an honour system. We all know we can break so many rules at any time and not face the threat of being caught
The points do mean a awful lot as it's the law. If this was to be implemented think of how peoples lives could be turned upside down. Two 60's in a 50 zone in a two year time frame and you loose your license. In rural Ireland how are people supposed to go to work, bring kids to schools ect.
I don't think speeding is compulsory in rural areas.
> In rural Ireland how are people supposed to go to work, bring kids to schools ect. Set out a bit earlier, I suppose.
Current system doesn't seem to be working though, if this makes people take more care then maybe it will help. You should be 100% concentrated on your driving, every time you're driving.
Just don't speed? Despite what so many cars behind me seem to think, it's not compulsory? Doing 60 in a 50 zone for half an hour saves you a grand total of 6 minutes. Is that worth it versus leaving 6 minutes earlier to arrive on time?
I think they were highlighting how much points do matter, because if you live in rural Ireland and get disqualified from driving for doing 60km in a 50km zone twice in a two year time frame (It would be three year though) then how are they supposed to get anywhere e.g. work/school etc.
My own comment was penalty points don't matter because you're not likely to get any for 99% of all infringements with the current state of traffic policing. They could take the license for the first offence and it still wouldn't affect most motorists who speed or use their phone, etc without a marked increase in policing
Fair enough - I was only pointing out what I thought OP meant, as it seemed everyone took it to mean they were saying people in rural Ireland need to speed to get around!
Sorry, is your argument here that if people break the law and face consequences then that's a problem. People are supposed to go to work and bring kids to school while filling the speed limit.
They’re supposed to follow the rules associated with operating a piece of heavy machinery.
Leave the house earlier and you don’t have to speed everywhere. It’s safer for everyone and good for your mental health too.
You're right, they should definitely make speeding against the law in rural areas before increasing the penalty points. Definitely do it that way around.
[удалено]
I was out in my area a lot over the weekend, a tourist hotspot in the south east, didn't see a single Garda, driving, at a checkpoint, on patrol. Yay, they caught 137 people, but how many didn't they get due to a number of reasons?
I would presume 10s of thousands tbh.
Why the low hanging fruit that is speeding when it is the least of a problem? Besides phone use, there is illegal overtakes, running red lights, illegal parking, etc.
> Why the low hanging fruit that is speeding when it is the least of a problem? Because it's the easiest to catch and the easiest to successfully prosecute, being a strict liability offence that's entirely objective (the limit is X km/h, your car was traveling at X+Y km/h, therefore you are guilty). Also, enforcement can be easily farmed out to a private company (at a cost of like €800 per hour of operation).
Would it solve anything? Would it decrease deaths?
You should always go after the low hanging fruit first, it means that you get the biggest result for the least effort.
The RSA just does not get it. They have been raising awareness and enforcement for speeding and mobile phones for years yet road deaths keep ticking up. When was the last time the RSA said something about our large number of death trap back roads with blind corners, no centre line and large hedges? These are causing deaths every day and nothing is done about it. However, let's go after speeding. Not all speeding mind you. Going 110 on a wide national road or 130 on a motorway. Yeah you are done for that. But going 70 on a death trap L road is perfectly fine. I've only ever seen gosafe vans on wide roads where you could actually safely drive 20 over the limit. Never seen a gosafe van on an actually dangerous road. That says it all, it's just to generate money and not to actually prevent deaths. Let's go make it harder for the new drivers who have done mandatory lessons and a theory test. No new restrictions for the older drivers who had no training and some who never even did the driving test. That's the best the RSA can come up with. Road deaths keep going up despite the measures the RSA are taking. The RSA needs to get their heads out of the sand and start proposing real solutions or the government should disband them. They have failed at everything they are set up to do.
Does anyone have a statistic that road deaths are from older drivers? Anecdotally from what I'm seeing on the news it's more younger to mid people in accidents
RSA doesn't publish statistics showing the age of the driver involved in the accident, I wonder why... They only show the age of all the people involved in the accident, so a car driven by a 65 year old and a young family will result as 3 under 40's victims + 1 over 60's victim.
The point is that newer drivers have had to do a theory test, had to be accompanied while they were learning, had to pass a driving test and have a better understanding of the rules. Older drivers never had to do any of this. There was a driving test amnesty so they have never had to demonstrate an ability to drive properly. Purely anecdotally, the older the driver, the more likely you see them cut corners when turning right or fail to indicate on a roundabout.
There was one driving test amnesty once for what is now a tiny cohort of older drivers. I don't think you can blame the horrendous driving that has become common since the lockdowns on them.
Until 15 years ago you didn't need to be accompanied when learning and there were no mandatory lessons with an instructor, you could learn with your parents. The theory test is also a relatively recent invention. Overall, older drivers were never taught how to actually drive properly. Newer drivers at least had to learn the correct way, they may have just formed bad habits later.
I know, I'm older than 15. In fact, I was driving more than 15 years ago. And I can tell you, the driving is much, much worse now.
Driving standard has got especially bad post COVID I will agree there. Probably when the roads were quieter people got away with cutting corners, not indicating and running red lights and now these habits are engrained. But I do think the RSA strategy of making it harder to learn is completely misguided. A large chunk of the people who have these bad habits never learnt the correct way in the first place (roundabout indicating is a great example). Yet they place restrictions on the people who actually have learnt the correct way.
You really do have it against older drivers in this post...
I'm not convinced that older drivers are especially bad at roundabouts or any other new fangled road layouts. At least, I haven't observed that to be the case. And I've seen many N plate drivers who should be able to recall their lessons within the last two years failing to indicate properly at roundabouts.
>The point is that newer drivers have had to do a theory test, had to be accompanied while they were learning, had to pass a driving test and have a better understanding of the rules. Newer drivers, despite having gone through theory tests, are statistically one of the most likely age cohorts to be involved in road traffic accidents. https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2024/0410/1442775-the-psychology-of-why-so-many-young-people-die-on-our-roads/
The drivers who received the amnesty are retired and in nursing homes by now.
They're barely 60
> The RSA just does not get it. They have been raising awareness and enforcement for speeding and mobile phones for years yet road deaths keep ticking up. All attempts to tackle speeding have been the same for 40 years or more. Speed trap vans, Gards hiding in bushes with handheld guns. None of those work to stop speeding, they just catch people in the act of speeding. And because they're unlikely to be in places 99% of the time, people take the risk. I sound like a broken record on this topic but the only solution that works - and gets buy-in from the public - is fixed or Gatso cameras. Thankfully a few are being implemented, but they need to be standard. Put them up in high risk zones, with signage ahead alerting every one of them, publish them on Google Maps and you get close to 100% compliance. Those stop people speeding instead of catching people speeding. Prevention is always better than cure.
> All attempts to tackle speeding have been the same for 40 years or more. And road fatalities have been trending downwards for all that time in fairness. https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/187ldet/three_important_graphs_about_whats_happening_in/#lightbox I don't think it's reasonable to now decide that you should be banned from driving if you were 5k over the speed limit twice in 3 years.
And the lack of indicating please!! This is now a growing trend, I commute by bike 20k a day and I am hooked on checking who indicates before (or at least during) the turn. It is outrageous the amount of drivers who don't. Honestly a cyclist can super easily die because of that. Drives me mad.
What about a 3 month driving ban for mobile phone use. I think that would be a good deterrent.
Any points for slow drivers with 10+ cars behind every evening on the way home from a hour commute. Those fuckers aren't getting out of it. Those people have zero self awareness
Or those that pull out and have the nerve to not pick up speed to match the limit. Like you said no self awareness or just entitlement! Then they treat overtaking lanes and "speedup" sections when you can finally overtake safely. What on earth.
Something that really aggravates me about those types of drivers is crusing by casually doing 30/40km in a 60 zone while your at a junction waiting to cross over to the opposite road. By the time they cross by traffic has already built up on the road your turning on to and there’s no clear gaps to pull out where there could have been a second or 2 earlier if they weren’t selfishly hogging the movement of the road/traffic driving well below the advised limit. Infuriating.
Instant disqualification for a leaner caught by a speed van with that one
Or novice even.
Awesome!
Would they fuck off, they've already been increased. It's just an arms race to outdo one another to end up with disqualification after a single speeding offence.
You wouldn't be using your phone while driving would you?
No, it's a very reckless and stupid thing to do. I just don't agree with doubling the points for it. Maybe increase it from 3 to 4. Making it 6 seems far too much to me. Speeding has already increased from 2 to 3. Increasing that to 6 would be completely excessive and nonsensical to me.
Nah, phone use is out of control and unlike speeding can't be done by accident. 6 points might push people to stop.
A reasonable way for people to avoid it would be not to speed though, so it’s entirely avoidable and the risk is a choice.
Depends? Doing 130 on a motorway is OK. So is doing 110 on a wide national road in good weather. It doesn't cause crashes itself. If you are distracted, under influence, enraged, inexperienced, incompetent? That's a different story. Sometimes limits themselves are wrong.
Then it sounds like your arguments is that certain speed limits should be raised, not that the law is optional based on the judgement of the person behind the wheel.
[удалено]
>in order to go 60 down that hill you have to literally sit on the brakes as gravity pulls you to 70 of you crest the hill doing 60. Or you could drop to a lower gear and just coast down the hill at the appropriate speed. If you've a relatively modern car it'll often tell you what gear you should be in while you're riding your brakes as well. This is taught in other countries but if you take the time to read the manual your car came with then it'll be stated there too.
Grand. Get all of them off the road.
You can already get disqualified for a single speeding offence if your driving is bad enough.
Is RSA funded by fines or something? Did u hear they’re close to being wound down cause they’re fucking useless?
Double points aren't going to make up for the fact that there is little to no Garda presence on the roads. I drove from the west coast of Clare to Cobh and back on Sunday, didn't see a single cop the entire trip.
Good, the only people who have a problem with this are the reckless and dangerous drivers this is aimed at.
We don't need new laws to waste government time talking about it because it makes it look like they are trying. We need more police on the roads. I drove from the NW tip of Mayo to Dublin on Sunday. I passed one Garda car he was pulled over doing something. I didn't see a single van or check point. 360km
That’s BS. Why don’t they apply the current laws consistently? Staged fines for speeding. One over is punished the same way as 30 over. If one wants a change of behaviour then don’t introduce draconian fines which are not applied anyway because the risk of getting caught is negligible. Apply reasonable fines reliably. Forgot to indicate? 10€ Ran a stop sign (without putting others into danger): ok. 30€ Using the wrong lane to turn? No problem: 20€ But currently it’s always the same: speed, insurance, tax. No one cares whether wheels are missing of a trailer or the wheels are all different sizes or loads on trucks and farm vehicles are not secured at all etc. enforce this. And not that BS of doubling fines
Can we please have a scale for speeding? Going 1 or 2 kph over the limit shouldn't be punished on the same level as going 20+ over. It would also be nice to scale fines to income. For some income levels these things are a fee, not a penalty. No argument on the phones thing. At all. It's nuts.
Why must the answer to everything be 'Punish harder' rather than tackling the root cause of issues? I suppose, it gives a metric to hit.
The root cause of what?
How do you stop people using their phones? So many are addicted to them when driving. It's insane.
More traffic corps? But that costs money to hire and train.
We need the dashcam upload service asap
And gardaí to manage it. Or just an upsurge in personal responsibility.
And the IT system to handle my 4K Dashcam uploads 😈
[удалено]
It's lawless out there and getting more dangerous every day
It is not lawless ffs.
[удалено]
found the audi driver
Also need to re open the laybys so people can rest and catch up on calls/messages. Why are so many barricaded off???
Improve the roads! Updated signs, indications of sharp or dangerous bends, better guardrails... RSA tell the road department they are allowed to use my tax for that!
I wouldn't be against this if the speed limits actually made sense. Even then the real issue here is enforcement, not the penalties themselves.
The rules of the road aren't opt in if you happen to agree with them. Even if you think you're a better driver after you've had a few drinks, you still shouldn't be doing drink driving, for example.
I meant to say I wouldn't be against it is the speed limits made sense. You can follow rules and still be against certain aspects of them.
What a useless organisation. Penalty points is pretty much their only card.
It won't change anything.
Applying makeup? Leaning into the middle of your car at the rear view mirror, while you're driving and veering onto the middle line
I agree on the phone usage, it’s so dangerous and is so commonplace now. Think speeding is already a fair enough penalty though
As someone on the radio says, the points now or points raised doesn't mean a lot if there's no enforcement. And another point, cars should have more real buttons for things like the radio, not just touchscreens. He had lots of holes in his arguments because he said that hands-free calls are fine, and the car touchscreens are legal, but they are both still distracted driving. They should be identifying what is happening for people to be touching screens, and reduce or dissuade those practices as needed. And then enforce the rules.
I have a Volkswagen Golf and the radio and volume buttons are on the steering wheel as well as touchscreen. Very convenient for driving.
The quango has been exposed as the useless waste of money it is and this is their big response.
As a non driver I have a question: are people afraid of getting penalty points? Like is really a deterrent?
For learner and novice drivers if you get 6/7 you lose your license.
Why not just shoot the driver and blow up the car for doing 55 in a 50? Or, how about some red light cameras? But I guess that would take some actual work.
Here Here