[AidenL]

The system of penalty points currently in operation in the UK and elsewhere is being introduced in Ireland on Thursday.

Deaths on the roads in Ireland are higher than in the UK, and this system is being touted as the panacea to solve that problem.

No doubt, a lot of people will be walking after this.......

Having lived with the system do you feel that it is fair and equitable, or is it totally unjust?

Who has been burned by the points system to date ?

[Bonnie Scotland]

Seeing various reports of court cases etc, there are times when additional points are dished out to ensure a driver is banned under the totting up procedure (or am i paranoid) in some cases this is justified i suppose.

On the whole i would say that the system is relatively fair, if you are sitting on 9 points then you just gotta take your time and drive more carefully.

I've only ever had a compulsory 3 ponits (speeding) in 1994 once so i learned my lesson!!! Well until Sunday when i went on the central scotland run, wow, amazing stuff and sadly one of our members got a speeding ticket.
We are all now looking for the postman in case more of us were spotted.

So the message is, drive within the law and you shouldn't have to worry, but then you've got a MINI, so can you?

Alan fae bonnie scotland

[Dom]

I got 3 points for speeding on the motorway on April 1st! at 1 am

Hasn't affected insurance much, only cost £60 fine, and hasn't slowed me down much either (I wasn't doing a great excess in speed - below 90!). It has made me more wary of speed cameras and the like though.

Points means Prizes!!

Dom

[dcfkan]

I feel let down by the system whenever I hear persistant offenders getting off lightly, especially when people are injured or killed!

It makes me wonder sometimes that one can probably commit murder while driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs and get off lightly, as it would not be considered as "cold blooded"!!!

I shall get off my soap box now before I get flamed!

DK

[dietcokeplease]

When my in-laws moved to Cork about 3-4 years ago, I remember being shocked at the state of some of the cars on the roads.

Bald tyres with cord showing were relatively common. I've been told that since then an equivalent of the MOT has now been introduced.

I think that a points based system is fairer than fines alone. Any rich/wealthy person could flout the law with impunity and not have any impact upon their disposable income.

I still love the Irish roads though. Driving at 60mph and hitting my roof on the headlining is perversely fun.

But Oirish road tax! I wondered why most people drove cars with small engines. i.e. 1.6 Vectras instead of 2.0 Vectras in ES&W. Then my father-in-law changed his reg and taxed his car through Ireland. Get this: Mercedes E320 - UK Road Tax £160, Irish Road Tax £900!

[dietcokeplease]

Quote:

Originally posted by dcfkan
I feel let down by the system whenever I hear persistant offenders getting off lightly, especially when people are injured or killed!

It makes me wonder sometimes that one can probably commit murder while driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs and get off lightly, as it would not be considered as "cold blooded"!!!

I shall get off my soap box now before I get flamed!

DK

I agree DK.

Anyone who kills whilst under the influence of drink/drugs should be tried for 2nd degree murder. Simple as that.

[AidenL]

DCP,

Its not as if they didnt get enough tax take to fix the blooming roads !

We also have VRT, excise duty on cars over here......made illegal by EU, but Ireland got a derogation!

Now, on saying that, if you come back now, you will be amazed at the quality of cars, the MOT/NCT has been introduced, plus, we have had the "Celtic Tiger" ecomomic boom (since fizzled), and there are hardly any cars on the road older than 00!! (Well, almost none).

So, penalty points are next, lucky us !

BTW, the base price of a Cooper here is €23,000.00, say £15,000 stg, with nothing on it !

[AidenL]

Quote:

Originally posted by dietcokeplease


I agree DK.

Anyone who kills whilst under the influence of drink/drugs should be tried for 2nd degree murder. Simple as that.

Agreed also !

[Martin L]

I think it's a fair system but they really should extend it to include illegal parking too
It's these inconsiderate *******s who clog up the cities. If you give them points this will stop illegal parking in a trice

Martin for transport secretary

[AidenL]

I believe it is going to include parking here.......I think.....

Speeding is the first thing to be covered, and expanded list of offences will follow......

[Dom]

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin L
I think it's a fair system but they really should extend it to include illegal parking too
It's these inconsiderate *******s who clog up the cities. If you give them points this will stop illegal parking in a trice

Martin for transport secretary

Sounds like a Ken livingstone plan

Dom

[AidenL]

Yeah, you can do a course here too and get 3 points knocked off......

Ive checked the parking thing, and it only applies to "Parking in a Dangerous Position", however that will be interpreted by different policemen ?

[AidenL]

Hmmm, 400 people ticketed on day one around the country !

[Viscount Charles]

Could someone tell me what "second degree murder" is?? I know death by dangerous, manslaughter and numerous other criminal charges, but this "second degree" business is an American thing. Over here, there's murder and that's that. Very difficult to prove someone *intended* to kill or injure someone else with a car, regardless of their state of sobriety - and that's the legal test. Manslaughter works from time to time; death by dangerous driving is the usual charge, and it usually fits the bill.
But back to the topic under discussion. Does the points system work? Not really, or at least, not any more. It used to work well, when points were handed out according to whether they were seen driving badly. A policeman pulled you over for speeding, you got three points if it was bad enough that you didn't get a verbal warning. If you caused an accident through carelessness, think 3-6 points. Dangerous driving - again, spotted by a policeman or arising out of an accident - and you'd get between 6 points and a ban.

Now we have a different system of enforcement. Get seen speeding by a camera, 3 points - regardless of road conditions, weather, traffic etc. Do that 4 times in 3 years, you're banned. Drive like a **** through a local council estate, every day for 3 years, and nothing happens - all the policemen that used to be on local traffic patrol are either in unmarked cars on the motorway or processing camera tickets. Careless and dangerous driving prosecutions are few and far between - there are less now than 20 years ago IMO - and yet the number of bad drivers is up (again, IMO). Instead, we rely on cameras and no insurance prosecutions to keep the roads "safe".

MADNESS, UTTER MADNESS. The salesman driving at 95MPH on the M25 often enough to get his ban may not be driving safely - on the other hand, he may be perfectly alright, always driving past schools at 20mph and checking in his mirrors before manouvreing. I'd rather have him on the road than someone who writes off two cars a year, never holds valid insurace, thinks speedbumps are there to test out his suspension and shows off to his mates on the back seat by screeching round every corner.

[dietcokeplease]

Quote:

Originally posted by Viscount Charles
Could someone tell me what "second degree murder" is?? I know death by dangerous, manslaughter and numerous other criminal charges, but this "second degree" business is an American thing. Over here, there's murder and that's that. Very difficult to prove someone *intended* to kill or injure someone else with a car, regardless of their state of sobriety - and that's the legal test.

The point is VC is that it offends me to see someone knowingly getting drunk and then getting behind a wheel of a car. When they kill someone, such as the main breadwinner of a family or a young child. I'm supposed to be content in knowing that justice is a one year driving ban and a £70 fine. No way! Our laws are woefully inadequate, especially manslaughther.Anyone who drinks/drives/kills should be banned for a lenghty period - at least 5-10 years AND a prison sentence.

Think about it in real terms VC. You're a father. You've posted about child-seats etc. Your son/daughter is walking home from school. Moron has several pints and whiskys at lunchtime. He drives and kills your son/daughter. Should the law have to prove intent to kill? In my opinion, death by dangerous driving whilst under the influence should be an absolute offence like speeding.

[Viscount Charles]

Death by dangerous exists on the statute books, IIRC the maximum penalty is 10 years, and I've seen prosecutions brought where the driver has been under the influence of drugs and/or drink when drivnig dangerously.

It's not an "absolute" offence, like speeding, as the prosecution have to prove that the driving was dangerous (which is decided by the jury); however there is no requirement to prove an intention to kill, injure, recklessness, negligence or anything like that. It fits the bill just fine, most of the time. Some cases of death on the roads do fit manslaughter charges better; a very few are murder or attempted murder.

Whenm the right charges are picked by the prosecution (and the jury convict the defendant), there's no question of death by dangerous attracting a year's ban and £70 fine. It's *almost* always prison, for a number of years (even for police drivers on blue light runs, if the jury accept that their driving was dangerous).

Drink-driving alone will get you the minimum of a 12-moth ban and several hundred pounds in fines, where there has been no accident at all.

I know of cases where people have been killed in road accidents and the "culprit" has walked out of court free, even with their driving licence (I've defended a few), but in those cases the charges are usually careless driving - in other words, the driver was guilty of poor driving - *not* bad driving - of the sort that too many members of this comunity must have indulged in to see so many write-offs recently.

Please don't think that I am happy with the idea of drunken morons mowing us all down then staggering out of court scott-free. I'm not - in fact, I'm all in favour of reducing the current permitted alcohol levels for drivers from 80 microgrammes in a breath sample (about 2 pints) to something more like 20 microgrammes (in other words, if you have a drink you're over the limit). I suppose I shouldn't have snapped over that second-degree thing, but there are far too many people that base their understanding of the law on Ally McBeal and local newspaper reports (both are woefully inaccurate sources; at least one has the questionable virtue of being used to line budgie cages).

My point is that a camera is *never* going to stop/catch/prosecute a drunk driver, or a dangerous driver, or a killer. That needs a real policeman. And our current points system seems to downplay their role far too much.

[R1]

Quote:

Originally posted by AidenL
Having lived with the system do you feel that it is fair and equitable, or is it totally unjust?

As a money earner for the Police/Government ... yes!!!

As a way of stoping roads deaths .... NO!!

Speed is less of a problem than just plain bad driving!!

The difference in road death statistics since the introduction of speed cameras and points system hasn't changed for the better!!

The guys in Ireland have probably seen the revenue earned by the Brits and want a piece of the action!!

[Keith]

Quote:

Originally posted by Viscount Charles
Could someone tell me what "second degree murder" is?? I know death by dangerous, manslaughter and numerous other criminal charges, but this "second degree" business is an American thing.

1st degree murder is premeditated - it was planned in advance. The Washington sniper committed premeditated murder.
2nd degree murder is spontaneous - usually in a fit of rage.
manslaughter is unintentional - doing something dumb and dangerous that causes a death.
The differences come down to intent that the jury has to decide.