Speed camera mega-thread Read first post before posting

L1011 · 09-12-2011 9:07pm

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Are you saying that their location is accidental as a result of old or incorrect data, and the money generated is a happy coincidence. Or are you saying that a member of the Gardai or a civil servant having appraised locations has decided on their location based on the likelihood of catching motorists in excess of the posted limits for reasons other than publicly stated.

That their positioning is the result of incredibly outdated data, data that nobody is concerned to fix due to the revenue stream. Even if this makes the "where people have died" part of their advertising a lie.

The rest of your post is incoherent gibberish.

Reg'stoy · 09-12-2011 9:10pm

bcmf wrote: »

Looks like the Garda were trying to fill their qouta today at the slip road (M1) from the M1 to Dublin airport at about 2pm. Sitting in the hard shoulder with the gun and pulling people in.
Would have been better served ,IMO, checking speed on the M1 where 2 crashes happened within 24hrs at the same spot less then 2 km away instead of shooting fish in a barrel.

Have no problem with a speed check there as you need people slowed down, it's 80kph coming down from 100kph so not exactly slow. Once you pass that slip road you have cars joining from the airport, cars trying to exit to the M50, cars moving across 3 lanes of traffic. If Irish drivers got into the correct lane and didn't cross chevrons or keep right hoping to avoid queues; I might agree with you.

Every morning I see cars crossing the chevrons or staying in the centre or right hand lane till the last moment before cutting across traffic to exit for the M50. So a couple of points might cop them on.

Reg'stoy · 09-12-2011 9:17pm

MYOB wrote: »

That their positioning is the result of incredibly outdated data, data that nobody is concerned to fix due to the revenue stream. Even if this makes the "where people have died" part of their advertising a lie.

The rest of your post is incoherent gibberish.

Have a look at my post above in reply to dr.fuzzenstein (it's actually on the same page as your post) and then get back on to me there sport

.

L1011 · 09-12-2011 9:50pm

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Have a look at my post above in reply to dr.fuzzenstein (it's actually on the same page as your post) and then get back on to me there sport .

Someone who rants on about the concept of conspiracy theories is identical to me as someone who posts them.

That the cameras are not being placed where they claim they are is plain to see. There's no conspiracy there.

cyclopath2001 · 09-12-2011 10:12pm

MYOB wrote: »

That their positioning is the result of incredibly outdated data, data that nobody is concerned to fix due to the revenue stream.

If people are breaking the law at those locations, then, the cameras are correctly deployed.

You make it sound like people who break speed limits and are punished for it are victims rather than offenders. This is wrong.

Reg'stoy · 09-12-2011 11:02pm

MYOB wrote: »

Someone who rants on about the concept of conspiracy theories is identical to me as someone who posts them.

That the cameras are not being placed where they claim they are is plain to see. There's no conspiracy there.

Would you care to provide proof, if it's plain to see that shouldn't be too hard. Or rather still, provide the proof to an ambulance chasing solicitor and ask him to persue the case; as I have yet to see where a speeding fine was overturned do to a camera vans location being incorrect.

In as much as a previous poster accepted the links I provided. I am willing to accept proof of a conserted effort on the part of the authorities to place privately operated camera vans in locations other than as laid down on the Garda website. Anecdotal evidence I'm afraid, will not suffice.

As for my references to conspiracy theories, that was a little known concept called sarcasm.

p.s.
To say that the cameras are not been placed where thay are saying they are placing them sounds like a conspi......... oops damn you sarcasm, damn you to hell.

L1011 · 09-12-2011 11:50pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

If people are breaking the law at those locations, then, the cameras are correctly deployed.

You make it sound like people who break speed limits and are punished for it are victims rather than offenders. This is wrong.

The cameras are claimed to be at locations where "people have died". They aren't. Hence they are not correctly deployed.

You have previously refused to condemn cyclists who break traffic laws and have also condoned extremely dangerous driving ("brake testing" other drivers). If you're not whither than white you may as well stop pretending to be.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Would you care to provide proof, if it's plain to see that shouldn't be too hard. Or rather still, provide the proof to an ambulance chasing solicitor and ask him to persue the case; as I have yet to see where a speeding fine was overturned do to a camera vans location being incorrect.

GoSafe are putting the vans where they're told to, and the RSA/AGS can tell them wherever they want, once they're not motorways. There is nothing for a solicitor to overturn.

Its just that they are either being incredibly ignorant or downright lying about why the locations are picked.

I'm not going to engage with you again until you stop mentioning "conspiracy theories". Its not sarcasm, it makes you look you're attempting to evade the issue.

Seth Brundle · 10-12-2011 12:11am

MYOB wrote: »

The cameras are claimed to be at locations where "people have died". They aren't. Hence they are not correctly deployed.

Read between the lines:
from garda.ie
"Safety cameras will be on the roads all across Ireland where fatal collisions are happening as a result of inappropriate speed." No use of the word "only" to refer to the roads checked. (strange use of present tense)

"An extensive analysis of collisions on the road network where speed was a contributory factor has been completed.

The following sections of road, as set out on the map, were identified as having a significant proportion of collisions whereby, in the opinion of the investigating Garda, a safe speed was exceeded.

Ongoing surveys will be conducted to ensure that these sections of roads continue to represent locations where speeding is happening. The map will be updated accordingly."Again no suggestion that these would be the only roads checked.

I would draw your attention to the second paragraph which I interpret as being collisions whereby the speed at impact may have been less that the speed limit.

Lastly, don't forget that Garda talivans can go on any public road in the RoI that they see fit.

L1011 · 10-12-2011 12:17am

kbannon wrote: »

Read between the lines:
from garda.ie
"Safety cameras will be on the roads all across Ireland where fatal collisions are happening as a result of inappropriate speed." No use of the word "only" to refer to the roads checked. (strange use of present tense)

"An extensive analysis of collisions on the road network where speed was a contributory factor has been completed.

The following sections of road, as set out on the map, were identified as having a significant proportion of collisions whereby, in the opinion of the investigating Garda, a safe speed was exceeded.

Ongoing surveys will be conducted to ensure that these sections of roads continue to represent locations where speeding is happening. The map will be updated accordingly."Again no suggestion that these would be the only roads checked.

I would draw your attention to the second paragraph which I interpret as being collisions whereby the speed at impact may have been less that the speed limit.

Lastly, don't forget that Garda talivans can go on any public road in the RoI that they see fit.

I've never mentioned the Garda tailvans or the survey units.

There is no suggestion that there would be anything else checked - you're the one reading things in to text that isn't actually there.

Your interpretation is also irrelevant, as I've never mentioned ANYTHING to do with fatalities/collisions being speed related - only that the data they use to justify many sites refers to roads that either no longer exist in the form they did when the incidents happened, or an entirely different road (the R/L road left after the N road gets replaced).

Why are people acting as if I've said things I haven't? Strawman central. The fact is that a huge number of the GoSafe locations are chosen or justified on wildly inaccurate data. And yes, I am able to tell the difference between a Garda unit, a GoSafe survey unit and an GoSafe enforcement unit.

Seth Brundle · 10-12-2011 12:30am

I never said that you said anything.
I'm pointing out that they said that they will be on the roads where fatalities occurred but they also didn't say that they wouldn't be elsewhere. In other words, based on the blurb on garda.ie, the vans could potentially be pretty much anywhere.

L1011 · 10-12-2011 12:34am

kbannon wrote: »

I never said that you said anything.
I'm pointing out that they said that they will be on the roads where fatalities occurred but they also didn't say that they wouldn't be elsewhere. In other words, based on the blurb on garda.ie, the vans could potentially be pretty much anywhere.

I don't take a specific "will" with *no other data* as being anything other than a specification of, erm, where something will be.

You're reading vast amounts of missing data in to a very short statement that fundamentally changes it.

bcmf · 10-12-2011 12:49am

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Have no problem with a speed check there as you need people slowed down, it's 80kph coming down from 100kph so not exactly slow. Once you pass that slip road you have cars joining from the airport, cars trying to exit to the M50, cars moving across 3 lanes of traffic. If Irish drivers got into the correct lane and didn't cross chevrons or keep right hoping to avoid queues; I might agree with you.

Every morning I see cars crossing the chevrons or staying in the centre or right hand lane till the last moment before cutting across traffic to exit for the M50. So a couple of points might cop them on.

I think you may have the wrong slip road. It was the road leading to the airport from the M1. You have a roundabout with traffic lights to slow the traffic with an additional slip road for the old swords road.
My point was that in the last 18 hrs there was AFAIK 2 crashes just before jctn 3 where that chaotic 3 lane system is in place (the exit for Airside) surely if safety was a priority they would be operating there and trying to put manners on motorists (as you pointed out).
But sitting on a hard shoulder just off a bend on a mway is just shooting fish in a barrel.
Just saying :rolleyes:

Reg'stoy · 10-12-2011 1:06am

bcmf wrote: »

I think you may have the wrong slip road. It was the road leading to the airport from the M1. You have a roundabout with traffic lights to slow the traffic with an additional slip road for the old swords road.
My point was that in the last 18 hrs there was AFAIK 2 crashes just before jctn 3 where that chaotic 3 lane system is in place (the exit for Airside) surely if safety was a priority they would be operating there and trying to put manners on motorists (as you pointed out).
But sitting on a hard shoulder just off a bend on a mway is just shooting fish in a barrel.
Just saying :rolleyes:

Oops my bad

, I was thinking of the southbound side. Yeah the spot your talking off at the airside exit is a nightmare alright, but they're supposed to be (how long is a piece of string) extending that 3rd lane to the Rush/Lusk exit soon.

Reg'stoy · 10-12-2011 1:35am

MYOB wrote: »

The cameras are claimed to be at locations where "people have died". They aren't. Hence they are not correctly deployed..........

I'm not going to engage with you again until you stop mentioning "conspiracy theories". Its not sarcasm, it makes you look you're attempting to evade the issue.

Quote directly from the Garda website

How will the locations be decided? Who is responsible for deciding the locations?

An Garda Síochána has completed an extensive analysis of the collision history on the road network. Sections of road have been identified where a significant proportion of collisions occurred where speed was a contributory factor. The Garda National Traffic Bureau (GNTB) will decide on the locations where the speed cameras will operate.

No mention of Deaths there, Kbannon got there first but it needs saying again

Quote directly from the RSA website

These locations have been identified as having a history of speed related death and injury.

I do see death mentioned but I also see injury.

Now, how by providing links or direct quotes to stand over my stance am I evading the issue. If the issue is their locations, I have provided a link to the RSA document showing road collisions since 2005 and also provided a link to the Garda map of go-safe inforcement areas and suggested that people compare them by over lapping locations. If upon comparing the locations that there has been no serious collision or outdated roads as you said above, then I'm willing to accept that.

The fact that you say that they are placed on the wrong roads would be very easy to prove. The fine you get in the post gives the location of the offence, simply compare this to the Garda map on the website. If the road is not down as a go-safe location well, judges have thrown out speeding fines for less.

All I have ever said is; I don't believe that go-safe cameras are revenue generators based on my viewing of the available evidence. You obviously hold the opposite view, yet fail to provide your own links.

To say that go-safe vans were only meant to be placed where

MYOB wrote: »

"people have died"

(I take it that is what you mean) as proof that they are at the wrong locations is a misnomer. To the best of my recollection, that is neither the stated position of the Gardai or the RSA; and by that position I mean camera vans placed only where some one has died as a result of an accident.

Now I will be fair and also quote the below from the Garda website

Excessive or inappropriate speeding is a major factor in road traffic collisions. Safety cameras will be on the roads all across Ireland where fatal collisions are happening as a result of inappropriate speed.

But it does not say only on those roads as mentioned by Kbannon also. People continually claim that these go-safe cameras are revenue generators based on nothing other than .....well I have yet to see any proof.

SeanW · 10-12-2011 1:36am

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

If people are breaking the law at those locations, then, the cameras are correctly deployed.

You make it sound like people who break speed limits and are punished for it are victims rather than offenders. This is wrong.

I wonder if you feel the same way about cyclists who cycle on footpaths, run red lights ...

L1011 · 10-12-2011 1:50am

Reg'stoy wrote: »

No mention of Deaths there, Kbannon got there first but it needs saying again

An irrelevance where the stats for injury refer to the same upgraded or replaced roads.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I do see death mentioned but I also see injury.

And again.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

But it does not say only on those roads as mentioned by Kbannon also.

And you are also reading content that is not. Nowhere, at all, does it say cameras "will" be anywhere else. Both you and kbannon need to stop trying to redefine the English language.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue here at this point. Walls of text and none of it dealing with the issue that the RSA is either downright lying or very stupid. Listen to any of their advertising and not quotes off their website (more evasion).

2005 is a generation ago in terms of Irish roads. Collision data from the early part of that period has been used to determine placing of cameras on roads which have been upgraded or completely replaced. In many cases the road that had the collisions still exists, but they aren't going to place a camera where there might be 10 cars an hour.

I have provided examples earlier in this thread of cases where a rural GoSafe location - frequently used - has been placed on a new build, extremely wide and still relatively low trafficked road where all the data refers to the winding back road it replaced; and an urban location (which I've never seen used) where the single fatality was long enough ago that I believe its actually out of the period they're meant to be using for statistics and since then there's been two pedestrian crossings, speed ramps and extensive barriers installed.

One is on the wrong road, the other is somewhere where to speed you'd need to cause damage to your car.

If I went through the entire list I suspect 70%+ of the roads have been upgraded, bypassed or replaced since the start of the stats period.

Some of the remaining 30%+ are locations where the camera van is only ever placed on a long-standing improved section of road, e.g. the N53 outside Dundalk where the "zone" covers a long, straight but extremely up and down section of road which often has head-on collisions; but the van is only ever at the far end of the zone which is wide and flat.

Others are aspirational ones where there is actually nowhere safe to park a van and they're hoping for a placebo effect from the signs.

cyclopath2001 · 10-12-2011 8:27am

SeanW wrote: »

I wonder if you feel the same way about cyclists who cycle on footpaths, run red lights ...

Only in 'motors' do you find so many people trying to say that laws should not be enforced.

monument · 10-12-2011 9:45am

If you want to talk about cyclists... Does this death before enforcement requirement a few of you have apply to cyclists too, or just motorists for some reason?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

SeanW wrote: »

I wonder if you feel the same way about cyclists who cycle on footpaths, run red lights ...

Only in 'motors' do you find so many people trying to say that laws should not be enforced.

Not sure on that.

There are quite a few cyclists willing to defend breaking the law, but the important thing is that there is a very clear consensus on the cycling board that red lights should be stopped for, you should not cycle on the footpath, and you should uses lights.

Even more people over there will agree that if you're caught you're fair game. There's a hardcore everywhere who defends lawbreaking, but motorists here seem to think there's noting wrong with speeding and the enforcment of the limit is perverse unless somebody has died on the road. This is bloody strange, regardless of what has been said in a press release or statement or website.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-12-2011 1:35pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Only in 'motors' do you find so many people trying to say that laws should not be enforced.

That's evading the question.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-12-2011 1:37pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Only in 'motors' do you find so many people trying to say that laws should not be enforced.

That's evading the question.
And what the hell are you doing in motors anyway, since you're obviously a car-hating cyclist?

> Cycling forum, on yer bike!

cyclopath2001 · 10-12-2011 2:30pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's evading the question.

You're trying to evade the subject by dragging in unrelated matters.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And what the hell are you doing in motors anyway, since you're obviously a car-hating cyclist?
> Cycling forum, on yer bike!

I drive a car and like many other drivers, obey the laws. I detest people who break road traffic laws and then try to rationalise their way out of blame. That's what happens in this thread.

SeanW · 10-12-2011 2:44pm

But you're still evading the question: do you feel as passionately about CYCLISTS who break the law? Or just motorists?

If you want to talk about cyclists... Does this death before enforcement requirement a few of you have apply to cyclists too, or just motorists for some reason?

No frankly, I don't care greatly about law breaking cyclists as - most of the time - they're not a serious danger. As far as I am concerned, a cyclist running a red light when there's clearly nothing on the junction or cycling on an empty footpath is the same as a motorist "speeding" when its safe to break the speed limit, like that HQDC in Ennis with the 50kph limit, or a regional road that is very wide and very straight, etc. Both occur with extreme and predictable regularity.

But I'm not the one going on about "THE LAW IS THE LAW AND IT MUST BE ENFORCED!!

(but only against one group)

" mantra. And im not doing so while posting under a username which glorifies insane behaviour by the other group.

I detest people who break road traffic laws and then try to rationalise their way out of blame. That's what happens in this thread.

But yet your username glorifies this precisely this type of behaviour!

SeanW · 10-12-2011 3:00pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You're trying to evade the subject by dragging in unrelated matters.

No, it is related. You're saying the law is the law, and suggesting that all traffic laws are equal.

However you also give the impression that, like the animals in Animal Farm, "some laws are more equal than others"

I would like you to clarify this before I put you on "Ignore."

Our man in Havana · 10-12-2011 3:03pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hGvQtumNAY

Iwannahurl · 10-12-2011 4:40pm

SeanW wrote: »

...

As far as I am concerned, a cyclist running a red light when there's clearly nothing on the junction or cycling on an empty footpath is the same as a motorist "speeding" when its safe to break the speed limit, like that HQDC in Ennis with the 50kph limit, or a regional road that is very wide and very straight, etc.

But I'm not the one going on about "THE LAW IS THE LAW AND IT MUST BE ENFORCED!!
(but only against one group)
" mantra. And im not doing so while posting under a username which glorifies insane behaviour by the other group.

But yet your username glorifies this precisely this type of behaviour!

Talk about clutching at straws!

There is no valid comparison to be made between a bicycle and a motorised vehicle travelling at speeds in excess of any given limit. How many people have been killed or seriously injured in single-vehicle crashes involving push-bikes? How many pedestrians (or cyclists) have been killed or seriously injured in collisions with bicycles?

FWIW, I think laws regulating cyclists should be enforced. The fact that they are not is a reflection of Ireland's habitual culture of non-compliance, IMO. However, there's also the matter of priorities and cost-effective allocation of resources. It would make little sense and provide relatively little benefit in terms of reduced road deaths to pursue footpath cyclists, for example, with the same degree of rigour as drink-driving limits and speeding.

cyclopath2001 · 10-12-2011 6:24pm

SeanW wrote: »

I would like you to clarify this before I put you on "Ignore."

I don't mind if you ignore me as long as you don't ignore speed limits.

SeanW · 10-12-2011 6:28pm

So you're not going to answer the question?

Reg'stoy · 10-12-2011 7:18pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I don't mind if you ignore me as long as you don't ignore speed limits.

SeanW wrote: »

So you're not going to answer the question?

I have to agree with the others here cyclopath. I do believe that to balance your position you should answer the question. We can hardly expect others to accept that all speed limits whether or not they believe them to be correct should be obeyed, while at the same time seem (even if you don't mean to) think that cyclists can ignore certain rules of the road when it suits them and not be seen as slightly uneven.

I along with other road users see cyclists flout particular rules of the road when it suits them. The arguement that they don't impinge on general road safety as much as say breaking speed limits does not really hold water if we expect that all rules/laws of the road what ever the user should be obeyed.

cyclopath2001 · 10-12-2011 7:32pm

Reg'stoy wrote: »

while at the same time seem (even if you don't mean to) think that cyclists can ignore certain rules of the road when it suits them and not be seen as slightly uneven.

What you say is utterly irrational. You ascribe a position to me, while at the same time acknowledging that I have not expressed it.

Is me, or a straw man, that you are attacking?

More distraction from the matter at hand, I fear.

Reg'stoy · 10-12-2011 7:46pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

What you say is utterly irrational. You ascribe a position to me, while at the same time acknowledging that I have not expressed it.

Is me, or a straw man, that you are attacking?

More distraction from the matter at hand, I fear.

Unfortunatly that is your problem you haven't take a position.

My position is I believe that the cameras are not revenue genertors and stand over that, you however state that everyone should obey all speed limits (all very laudable) but when asked as to whether or not other road users as in cyclist should also be held to as a high a standard you evade the question.

I'm not arguing with you but in not answering a fairly reasonable query you are being a wee bit duplicitous.

-Chris- · 10-12-2011 8:31pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

What you say is utterly irrational. You ascribe a position to me, while at the same time acknowledging that I have not expressed it.

Is me, or a straw man, that you are attacking?

More distraction from the matter at hand, I fear.

If you actually stated a position, we'd be able to move on from this part of the discussion.

cyclopath2001 · 11-12-2011 12:41am

-Chris- wrote: »

If you actually stated a position, we'd be able to move on from this part of the discussion.

My position is, and always has been, that people should obey road traffic laws and that any argument against the laws or how they are enforced should be based on facts and reasoning.

Could you now ask the others what their position is on these fundamentals or are you singling me out for special attention?

-Chris- · 11-12-2011 12:43am

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Could you now ask the others if what their position is on these fundamentals or are you singling me out for special attention?

I'm just asking a question, and I'm glad we can move on from this, but if there's any poster you think is being "fuzzy" with their answers, please point them out and we as a collective will try and question them to discern their true motives.

JamesBond2010 · 11-12-2011 12:49am

What the Hell are ye arguing about now !!..makes no sense lst few pages,

cyclopath2001 · 11-12-2011 12:57am

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

What the Hell are ye arguing about now !!..makes no sense lst few pages,

Some motorists don't want to discuss speed compliance, so they've tried to drag cyclist misbehaviour into the discussion.

jimmynokia · 11-12-2011 1:22am

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

What the Hell are ye arguing about now !!..makes no sense lst few pages,

Some motorists don't want to discuss speed compliance, so they've tried to drag cyclist misbehaviour into the discussion.

And then there is some cyclists that think they own the road,and some that are totally silly,at night with no lights or reflector bands who still think they are in the right.

SeanW · 11-12-2011 3:55am

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Some motorists don't want to discuss speed compliance, so they've tried to drag cyclist misbehaviour into the discussion.

No, some motorists thought you had a one sided, hypocritical view that road law is only for motorists. Many of us felt it was necessary to clarify this.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

My position is, and always has been, that people should obey road traffic laws and that any argument against the laws or how they are enforced should be based on facts and reasoning.

Ok, so I assume that you have an equal probelm with law breaking cyclists/pedestrians as you do motorists?

Could you now ask the others what their position is on these fundamentals or are you singling me out for special attention?

No, we have all been clear about our positions.

To clarify my own, I feel that enforcement of road law should be based on common sense. In particular in relation to speed limits, they should be enforced where there are known problems, it doesn't have to be a history of fatalities, it could also be a history of injuries, residents complaining of people speeding through their neighborhoods etc.

One example of this is in Carrickboy, Co. Longford. It's a tiny village on a crossroads with a 60kph speed limit for a short distance. As a motorist I have always obeyed it because I feel it to be very reasonable. However, I read about a year or two ago that a speeding lorry demolished a garden wall of one of the buildings on the corner. According to the article, it was not the first time a speeding lorry had caused damage in the vicinity, but that car drivers in general had obeyed the speed limit.

Areas like this - where there is a clear history of speed related hazards - are candidates for full time, signed in advance, SPECS type cameras.
That is to say that at known speed danger areas, such as Carrickboy, there should be 24/7 permanent fixed speed montioring with clear indication in advance.

Similarly if residents living along a given road feel intimidated by speeding motorists, they should be able to get a SPECS camera on their road, again, very well signed, to stop the unwanted speeding.

Silly speed limits, such as HQDCs with 50kph speed limits, or areas where there have not been problems attributable to speeding, enforcement serves no purpose and should not be a priority.

I take a similarly permissive view in relation to cyclists and pedestrians who break the red lights when they can clearly see that it is safe to do so. I would NOT extend that to motorists though, for semi-obvious reasons.
However I'm not exactly thrilled about people who cycle on footpaths.

In short, common sense should rule.

pa990 · 11-12-2011 4:01am

what the fudge have cyclists have to do with speed cams ?

imo this thread has gone off the tracks

SeanW · 11-12-2011 4:02am

is that a Narrow Gauge railway?

pa990 · 11-12-2011 4:04am

MODS:

can we have a sticky, listing confirmed details about Garda Robot Vans, and GoSafe vans, ie radar frequency, Appearance, flash/no flash, range etc.

i'd be happy to compile such info

cyclopath2001 · 11-12-2011 10:10am

SeanW wrote: »

That is to say that at known speed danger areas, such as Carrickboy, there should be 24/7 permanent fixed speed montioring with clear indication in advance....similarly if residents living along a given road feel intimidated by speeding motorists, they should be able to get a SPECS camera on their road, again, very well signed, to stop the unwanted speeding.

We already have speed limit signs, why the need for these extra signs? And let's not forget that the much respected 'IrishSpeedTraps' is concerned that when drivers become aware of sped traps, they jam on their brakes and may cause accidents.

The most efficient way to deploy the limited number of cameras is to keep people guessing about where they might be caught so that they drive at or below the legally permitted speeds.

-Chris- · 11-12-2011 11:43am

pa990 wrote: »

MODS:

can we have a sticky, listing confirmed details about Garda Robot Vans, and GoSafe vans, ie radar frequency, Appearance, flash/no flash, range etc.

i'd be happy to compile such info

Compile the info, I'll add a new first post that has it and update the thread title to refer to it.

ironclaw · 11-12-2011 1:45pm

-Chris- wrote: »

Compile the info, I'll add a new first post that has it and update the thread title to refer to it.

If you still have my thread Chris, feel free to unblock it as per my earlier request to remove it.

fasttalkerchat · 11-12-2011 3:18pm

pa990 wrote: »

MODS:

can we have a sticky, listing confirmed details about Garda Robot Vans, and GoSafe vans, ie radar frequency, Appearance, flash/no flash, range etc.

i'd be happy to compile such info

Not really much point on putting it o a forum because as soon as the van moves the information is useless and is hard to remove.
You could get a list of permanent speed cameras but most of them are on the garda website.

ironclaw · 11-12-2011 4:31pm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Not really much point on putting it o a forum because as soon as the van moves the information is useless and is hard to remove.
You could get a list of permanent speed cameras but most of them are on the garda website.

Take a second look there, they are offer tech info not location info.

But I'll be honest and say it would be meaningless to 99% of the posters here given the utter garbage that is currently be slung around. I'm sure someone will then have a safety report about how the K band radar is damaging our health as we drive passed etc etc. And we'll then fight about it until the actual people who know what they are talking about get drowned out by those who want a fight, like quoting stats or just generally can't read.

-Chris- · 11-12-2011 4:43pm

ironclaw wrote: »

If you still have my thread Chris, feel free to unblock it as per my earlier request to remove it.

Done - see first post

jimmynokia · 11-12-2011 4:57pm

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

My position is, and always has been, that people should obey road traffic laws and that any argument against the laws or how they are enforced should be based on facts and reasoning.

Could you now ask the others what their position is on these fundamentals or are you singling me out for special attention?

you single yourself out been obsessed with cycling on paths/roads not minding the roads do you stick to the speed limits,never break lights,stay in que,have lights on your bike.the correct tyre pressure,reflectors.
GAY BYRNES ANSWER THE NRA

Iwannahurl · 11-12-2011 8:02pm

jimmynokia wrote: »

you single yourself out been obsessed with cycling on paths/roads not minding the roads do you stick to the speed limits,never break lights,stay in que,have lights on your bike.the correct tyre pressure,reflectors.
GAY BYRNES ANSWER THE NRA

Does not compute.

ironclaw · 11-12-2011 8:30pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Does not compute.

For once I agree with you.

jimmynokia · 11-12-2011 8:55pm

ironclaw wrote: »

For once I agree with you.

does not commute maybe better

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

Comments

Speed camera mega-thread Read first post before posting