Speed camera mega-thread Read first post before posting

Hooch · 03-10-2011 2:07pm

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Have you found a link to back this up yet cyclopath?

There will be no link..........

*I'm sure no one expected there to be!!

cyclopath2001 · 03-10-2011 6:13pm

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Have you found a link to back this up yet cyclopath?

It's really great that you've become interested in the novel concept of facts being used to back up statements. previously, your stance has been to make statements and then assert that they're correct unless someone could prove you wrong. Well done.

I'm looking forward to seeing your figures for the net revenue generated by speed cameras.

-Chris- · 03-10-2011 6:43pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Have you found a link to back this up yet cyclopath?

It's really great that you've become interested in the novel concept of facts being used to back up statements. previously, you stance has been to make statements and then assert that they're correct unless someone could prove you wrong. Well done.

I'm looking forward to seeing your figures for the net revenue generated by speed cameras.

And what was your reason for not replying to me when I asked it?

cyclopath2001 · 03-10-2011 7:52pm

-Chris- wrote: »

And what was your reason for not replying to me when I asked it?

It's generally obvious that revenue from fines goes to the exchequer and that public services are funded by the exchequer.

Have you ever asked IrishSpeedTraps to back up his claims?

-Chris- · 03-10-2011 7:53pm

There's a far cry from this:

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Any net profit, of course, then goes towarsds funding emergency services.

to this:

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's generally obvious that revenue from fines goes to the exchequer and that public services are funded by the exchequer.

imho...

Yes, you are correct from a pedantic point of view, I was just interested in whether you had heard it as a specific initiative or not.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Have you ever asked IrishSpeedTraps to back up his claims?

If I ever ask him a question and he ignores it, I'll be sure to follow it up just as this question has been followed up.

cyclopath2001 · 03-10-2011 8:04pm

-Chris- wrote: »

If I ever ask him a question and he ignores it, I'll be sure to follow it up just as this question has been followed up.

Have you ever asked him to back up his claims about speed traps and them being 'income generators'? It's a very important topic and it would be really great if you could persuade him to back up his statements.

-Chris- · 03-10-2011 8:06pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Have you ever asked him to back up his claims about speed traps and them being 'income generators'? It's a very important topic and it would be really great if you could persuade him to back up his statements.

It's generally obvious that they generate income for the exchequer by issuing fines that are then paid by drivers.

What, specifically, is the issue you're trying to address?

cyclopath2001 · 03-10-2011 8:50pm

-Chris- wrote: »

It's generally obvious that they generate income for the exchequer by issuing fines that are then paid by drivers. What, specifically, is the issue you're trying to address?

He stated they are revenue generators but he's not supplied any evidence that the income from fines exceeds the costs of operation.

If there is no net revenue, then it's wrong to say that the government operates speed cameras to make money.

-Chris- · 03-10-2011 8:59pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

IHe stated they are revenue generators but he's not supplied any evidence that the income from fines exceeds the costs of operation.

If there is no net revenue, then it's wrong to say that the government operates speed cameras to make money.

I think the distinction being made when many posters refer to speed cameras as "revenue generators" is questioning whether the motivation behind them is in order to make a profit from the fines, or to encourage safety even if they run at a loss.

I've never felt it was an issue, because I don't think it matters. Even if the cameras were run at a profit, those who believe they're safety-motivated aren't in any way likely to change their minds (and vice versa imho).

That's why I've never questioned anyone, Irishspeedtraps or otherwise, on referring to them as "revenue generators".
I'm more interested in whether people see them in places that are positioned to enhance safety or to "shoot fish in a barrel". That's a far better indicator of what the motivation for their operation is.

My €0.02

Comic Book Guy · 03-10-2011 10:54pm

Hi All,

Quick question about our favourite vans!!

Whats the story with the vans being in a location not marked by a warning sign or marked on the garda.ie location map?
Are you still liable to get a fine and 2 points if caught?

I know that ya probably are since speeding is speeding but just wanted yer opinion.

Seth Brundle · 03-10-2011 11:05pm

Garda vans or the Spectra vans?

Comic Book Guy · 03-10-2011 11:32pm

The "10 KY" Reg ones.

It was the guy in front of me that got done with it this morning, i was just lucky this time :cool:.

Checked the map on garda.ie and it was about 5 miles away from the nearest marked potential location for one of them so was wondering what the story was.

Oral Surgeon · 04-10-2011 12:25am

Comic Book Guy wrote: »

The "10 KY" Reg ones.

It was the guy in front of me that got done with it this morning, i was just lucky this time :cool:.

Checked the map on garda.ie and it was about 5 miles away from the nearest marked potential location for one of them so was wondering what the story was.

This is not on atall. Go to court and tell the Judge that you were clearly in the speeding is allowed zone and that the cameras had no business being there to catch your unlawful speeding...:D

cyclopath2001 · 04-10-2011 7:34am

-Chris- wrote: »

I'm more interested in whether people see them in places that are positioned to enhance safety or to "shoot fish in a barrel". That's a far better indicator of what the motivation for their operation is.

They're placed at locations where people deliberately break the law.

Let's get real: All this stuff about 'revenue raising'(without any evidence a net profit), and 'put them on the dangerous corners in the back roads' is just a smokescreen from people who want to break the law without being caught.

-Chris- · 04-10-2011 8:37am

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

They're placed at locations where people deliberately break the law.

Yes, and if you're not speeding then you won't get caught by them. That's blindingly obvious and has been covered many, many times already in this thread.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Let's get real: All this stuff about 'revenue raising'(without any evidence a net profit), and 'put them on the dangerous corners in the back roads' is just a smokescreen from people who want to break the law without being caught.

You do know that revenue and profit are completely separate things, don't you? If it's creating an income then it's a revenue generator. Getting wound up by the use of this term is an exercise in futility.

I'm not getting caught up in the circular argument about the positioning of the cameras with you, you have your beliefs and I have mine, and I don't think either of the two of us will change our stance.

BanzaiBk · 04-10-2011 3:17pm

Happy days! Sorted it out with the solicitor, 4 fines letters sent out in the post with incorrect information from 1 van. Happened on the back road between Rochestown and Monkstown in Cork, I'd call the area in question Ballymot.

I.S.T. · 04-10-2011 4:02pm

Nice diversion cyclopath, so can we take it that there is no link, and that your claim is just a figment of your imagination?

cyclopath2001 · 04-10-2011 4:34pm

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Nice diversion cyclopath, so can we take it that there is no link, and that your claim is just a figment of your imagination?

Its quite obvious what happens to the fines.

Now, please give details of net profit from speed cameras and back up your claims.

Unlike how the fines are spent, this is very important matter relevant to the topic and your claims.

-Chris- · 04-10-2011 4:48pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Its quite obvious what happens to the fines.

Now, please give details of net profit from speed cameras and back up your claims.

Unlike how the fines are spent, this is very important matter relevant to the topic and your claims.

I've just done a search in this thread for the word Profit and posts by Irishspeedtraps. No results.

Can you link to where it was stated that these cameras are profitable?

Also, can you define the claim? Is the issue that they're profitable or that they're raising revenue?

I.S.T. · 04-10-2011 5:32pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Its quite obvious what happens to the fines.

So you have no source. We'll leave it there then.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Now, please give details of net profit from speed cameras and back up your claims.

Unlike how the fines are spent, this is very important matter relevant to the topic and your claims.

Which specific claim are you referring to? It doesn't matter anyway, I can just follow your example and respond by saying "It's quite obvious that [insert claim here]".

Iwannahurl · 04-10-2011 7:11pm

-Chris- wrote: »

I've just done a search in this thread for the word Profit and posts by Irishspeedtraps. No results.

Can you link to where it was stated that these cameras are profitable?

Also, can you define the claim? Is the issue that they're profitable or that they're raising revenue?

Let's not get bogged down in semantics.

I think it's pretty clear where Irishspeedtraps (dot com) stands on this general issue.

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I am against speed cameras being used to raise any revenue. The speeding fine should be abolished and just penalty points given for speeding offenses. This will remove any doubt in motorists minds that they are just there to make money.

-Chris- · 04-10-2011 9:03pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Let's not get bogged down in semantics.

I think it's pretty clear where Irishspeedtraps (dot com) stands on this general issue.

But this is a common thread throughout this discussion - one camp of people believe the cameras are primarily safety motivated, the other believes they are being used as an additional tax on the motorist.
There are many posters taking a stance on either side of the argument, but for some reason, only one poster is getting singled-out at the moment.

If they're safety related and successful, that'll be borne out by the road death statistics.
If they're an additional tax, odds are that'll be demonstrable based on where they're positioned and whether they're operating in the spirit of being visible deterrents as they were originally planned, or not.

To turn on a poster who believes they're being used for revenue more than safety, and to ask him to prove the cameras are being run at a profit (which, again, isn't the same thing as revenue) seems to be a deliberate misinterpretation of what the poster has said.

Hopefully Irishspeedtraps can clarify whether he meant revenue or profit, or hopefully Cyclopath2001 can quote a post where Irishspeedtraps said profit rather than revenue.

Maybe then we can move on...

-Corkie- · 04-10-2011 10:01pm

This thread is going round in circles so lets brighten it up.....

189359_10150255720760671_588465670_8161883_4209319_n.jpg

Iwannahurl · 04-10-2011 10:20pm

-Chris- wrote: »

But this is a common thread throughout this discussion - one camp of people believe the cameras are primarily safety motivated, the other believes they are being used as an additional tax on the motorist.

If they're safety related and successful, that'll be borne out by the road death statistics.

If they're an additional tax, odds are that'll be demonstrable based on where they're positioned and whether they're operating in the spirit of being visible deterrents as they were originally planned, or not.

If there are two camps as you suggest, then IMO one knows that there is good evidence internationally demonstrating the effectiveness of both overt and covert speed surveillance, whereas the other "camp" tends to ignore, misrepresent or play down such evidence, preferring instead to engage in rhetoric about stealth taxes and fish in barrels.

It is possible that 2011 will be the best year on record for road deaths, though it remains to be seen whether this will actually be the case. Rather than welcome such progress, it seems the speed camera (and anti-RSA) sceptics want to attribute gradually reducing road deaths to everything else but speed enforcement.

The hypothesis that speed cameras reduce road deaths is a testable one, and research has repeatedly shown that to be the case.

The stealth tax notion is barely a hypothesis, and is probably not a testable one in any event. For the stealth tax 'theory' to be valid even as conjecture, there would need to be no reduction at all in road deaths, no plausible explanation as to why speed cameras might reduce road deaths, and no prior evidence that speed cameras are effective at reducing road deaths.

cyclopath2001 · 04-10-2011 11:04pm

-Chris- wrote: »

Hopefully Irishspeedtraps can clarify whether he meant revenue or profit, or hopefully Cyclopath2001 can quote a post where Irishspeedtraps said profit rather than revenue.

Maybe other posters can say what they believed IrishSpeedTraps meant.

A reasonable interpretation would be 'Money Making', a term used in a press release over on IrishSpeedTraps.com.

To make money, you take in more than you spend.

Iwannahurl · 04-10-2011 11:41pm

"The fact is, the contract is for hours worked and bears no relationship to how many fines are issued. During the debates about the introduction of cameras, of which I was a part, there were calls within government to ensure the cameras were self-financing, but we strongly argued against it. The argument that clinched it was the work done by Peter Bacon on the economic cost of a road death. He estimated that it cost the economy about €3 million, while each speed fine netted about €80 to the State . . . If a speed camera prevents one death happening, its economic benefit is greater than 37,500 speeding fines, so the Government savings are made through saving lives, not speeding fines." (Conor Faughnan, Irish Times, 16th April 2011)

Tragedy · 04-10-2011 11:53pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If there are two camps as you suggest, then IMO one knows that there is good evidence internationally demonstrating the effectiveness of both overt and covert speed surveillance, whereas the other "camp" tends to ignore, misrepresent or play down such evidence, preferring instead to engage in rhetoric about stealth taxes and fish in barrels.

Aren't you the poster who constantly insists on people providing evidence to back up their assertions, when they provide said evidence, you ignore it and refuse to debate it?

And of course, your 'camp' is the correct, logical and knowledgable one and you aren't just as guilty as head in the sand LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT CONTRAVENES MY DEEPLY HELD BELIEFS nonsense that the other 'camp' engages in.

Of course not.

Just as Irishspeedtraps conveniently ignores awkward facts that go against some of his opinions/beliefs, so do you and cyclopath. More so than (s)he does in my reading of this forum.

It's getting pretty fécking tiresome too, and I wish the three of you just would just go and get yourself banned.

Oral Surgeon · 05-10-2011 12:07am

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Maybe other posters can say what they believed IrishSpeedTraps meant.

Mmmmm, I believe that no-one here really gives a crap about this anymore. Have your little fight by PM and spare the rest of us....

cyclopath2001 · 05-10-2011 7:13am

Oral Surgeon wrote: »

Mmmmm, I believe that no-one here really gives a crap about this anymore.

All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent.

-Chris- · 05-10-2011 8:15am

Tragedy wrote: »

Aren't you the poster who constantly insists on people providing evidence to back up their assertions, when they provide said evidence, you ignore it and refuse to debate it?

And of course, your 'camp' is the correct, logical and knowledgable one and you aren't just as guilty as head in the sand LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT CONTRAVENES MY DEEPLY HELD BELIEFS nonsense that the other 'camp' engages in.

Of course not.

Just as Irishspeedtraps conveniently ignores awkward facts that go against some of his opinions/beliefs, so do you and cyclopath. More so than (s)he does in my reading of this forum.

It's getting pretty fécking tiresome too, and I wish the three of you just would just go and get yourself banned.

Attack the post, not the poster please

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Maybe other posters can say what they believed IrishSpeedTraps meant.

That's open to misinterpretation, and therefore the reason that I asked for you to provide quotes to back up your opinion, or for Irishspeedtraps to clarify their position.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

A reasonable interpretation would be 'Money Making', a term used in a press release over on IrishSpeedTraps.com.

To make money, you take in more than you spend.

I don't know or care what Irishspeedtraps (or other posters) post on other websites, our debate is happening on boards.ie.
We don't allow Irishspeedtraps (or any other business) to direct people to their website for further information, I'd prefer if you didn't either.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent.

And all that's needed for a forum or thread to die, is for enough bad posters to soapbox and badger the other contributors into apathy.

Again, please stop attacking one particular poster. Final warning.

Speed camera mega-thread ***Read first post before posting***

Comments

Speed camera mega-thread Read first post before posting