Outragous hidden speed camera on the N3

Saruman

I have never seen anything like this! If you are heading Dublin bound on the N3 Navan road there is a new speed camera being erected today that motorists will not see!
It will be at the turnoff for Mulhuddart, you know where it leads into the industrial estate but you can then take a right to the village.
Anyway the camera is on THIS road, NOT the N3 but its up on a high pole and facing the N3. Looks like it will be facing traffic too.

Now i could be wrong and it might not be a speed camera at all, but its the same shape etc. I just think its clearly there for making money, i mean its a dual carriageway and i doubt there have been too many fatal accidents there.
The private operator reign of terror begins.

I mean of someone nips up to 110km/h for the few seconds they pass it then they are screwed, even if they drove at or below the speed limit for the whole journey.

They should be put in towns to make people obey the 50kph limits, at accident black spots and potential danger areas on small country roads and approaching any school in the country... NOT on motorways and dual carriageways.

Fnz

Feckin... FECKIN!!! GRRRRR!!! :mad:

kyote00

if you are obeying the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about.

Guy:Incognito

Saruman wrote:

I mean of someone nips up to 110km/h for the few seconds they pass it then they are screwed, even if they drove at or below the speed limit for the whole journey..

As has been discussed on numerous speedo threads, if you "nip up" to 11km/h your speedo is probably reading 120, meaning no excuses in a 100 zone.

Saruman wrote:

They should be put in towns to make people obey the 50kph limits, at accident black spots and potential danger areas on small country roads and approaching any school in the country... NOT on motorways and dual carriageways.

The last thing we need is to come round a blind bend on a country road to meet a guy breaking heavily having spotted a speed camera. Regardless of being in the worng for speeding, we still dont need to help people to run in to the back of others.

tuxy

kyote00 wrote:

if you are obeying the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about.

Of course. But the question being asked is why have speed cameras that are not for the purpose of making driving safer in this country?

milltown

"Outrageous", LOL

If they hid the speed limit signs, that would be outrageous.

VeVeX

kyote00 wrote:

if you are obeying the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about.

This is the bullsh1t attitude that is prevalent amongst the idiots that accept speed cameras on safe stretches of road.

There has never been an accident in my recollection on that stretch of road in recent times. There are a hell of alot more dangerous stretches of road to implement speed cameras then this. This road is by nature an easy target as it is relatively straight and most of the time bar mornings free from heavy traffic.

Speed cameras should only be accepted by the motoring public in areas of high accident rates ie Black Spots. A camera placed in a spot like this is without doubt a revenue machine and will not prevent or curtail the current carnage and extremely poor driving on our roads in this country.

There is no argument that speed cameras are effective in preventing accidents and there is research which suggests that hidden devices have a greater impact than visible ones in reducing speed but placing cameras on roads that have little or no accidents is purely a revenue generating racket.

antodeco

Had an interesting debate with someone recently over speed cameras. I have to admit, i accept his reasoning:

Speed cameras are placed in areas of high volume. Purposely to catch as many people as possible. The more people you catch, the more penalty points are given. The more penalty points given, the less likely people are going to take chances. This inturn changes driver attitude. If you got 8 points for speeding down the same "safe" road. You will eventually HAVE to not break any road laws, for fear of getting a ban. In 10 years time when everyone is on 6 points (the "law-breakers") people wont speed or take risks. Also the cost of maintaining a speed camera far exceeds the revenue generated.

I personally think its ridiculous putting speed cameras in safer places. It annoys me no ends. But as the reasoning behind it was explained to me, I can understand it. Overall, it seems like a revenue making scheme. But, the more drivers caught breaking the speed limit, the more drivers wont take chances.

blastman

Sorry, anto, I don't buy it. It will take far, far too long to get people to that stage points-wise on a large scale. Even people on a lot of points now (and proportionally it's still a tiny number, can't remember what it is exactly but it was in the paper very recently) haven't necessarily got all their points for speeding. Also, the idea is very Big-Brotherish, in my opinion. If that is the reasoning being used, the powers that be are even dumber than I thought. You would prevent more accidents much more quickly putting the cameras in dangerous spots.

DonJose

Personally I wouldn't be bothered if they placed speed cameras on every kilometer of every road in Ireland. I don't break the speed limit intentionally and if I did and if I'm caught then its my fault and nobody elses. I don't understand why you all get hot and bothered about this subject. The good news I saw today is that an extra 1000 speed cameras will be put up shortly.

DonJose

VeVeX wrote:

There is no argument that speed cameras are effective in preventing accidents and there is research which suggests that hidden devices have a greater impact than visible ones in reducing speed but placing cameras on roads that have little or no accidents is purely a revenue generating racket.

What speed limit would you purpose on the "safe stretches of road". The problem with Irish drivers is that if the speed limit is 100 they'll travel at 120. If the speed limit is 120 they'll travel at 140. If the legal speed limit was 140 do you think Irish drivers would stick to 140, you know they wouldn't.

miju

VeVeX wrote:

This is the bullsh1t attitude that is prevalent amongst the idiots that accept speed cameras on safe stretches of road.

There has never been an accident in my recollection on that stretch of road in recent times. There are a hell of alot more dangerous stretches of road to implement speed cameras then this. This road is by nature an easy target as it is relatively straight and most of the time bar mornings free from heavy traffic.

and that is the bull**** attitude that caused the massive pileup during the week on a perfectly safe straight stretch of road :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: . "its a perfectly safe straight stretch of road with all the traffic going in one direction sure **** it fog or no fog ill just hammer and tongs at the limit"

antodeco wrote:

Overall, it seems like a revenue making scheme. But, the more drivers caught breaking the speed limit, the more drivers wont take chances.

exactly , you can only correct someones behaviour temporarily with speed cameras etc , you can change their attitude / behaviour permanently when they're a couple of points away from a driving ban

Stark

miju wrote:

and that is the bull**** attitude that caused the massive pileup during the week on a perfectly safe straight stretch of road :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: . "its a perfectly safe straight stretch of road with all the traffic going in one direction sure **** it fog or no fog ill just hammer and tongs at the limit"

Well putting a speed camera on the M7 wouldn't have done much good as a camera would only have caught people going over the posted speed limit even though it was unsafe to do a fraction of the speed limit that day.

They should put the speed camera on the 80kph section on the other side just before the roundabout where traffic merges from the Snugborough Road flyover. They do regular Garda speed checks there but last week someone in work was bragging about getting away with getting 4 penalty points and a summons (he was doing 130km/hr) because the Garda on duty was impressed by his "fancy car" :rolleyes:

miju

Stark wrote:

Well putting a speed camera on the M7 wouldn't have done much good as a camera would only have caught people going over the posted speed limit even though it was unsafe to do a fraction of the speed limit that day.

i know that Stark but i was just using it as a fairly relevant case in point

Random

More money making speed cameras to finance the waiting list of driving test applications I say! I'd settle for that.

Our man in Havana

Probably not a speed camera at all. Most likely a traffic management camera.

Hagar

miju wrote:

you can change their attitude / behaviour permanently when they're a couple of points away from a driving ban

There is a flaw in that logic.
Why set the ban limit at 12 points? Why not 3 points?
If that was done everyone would only be one offence from a ban and by your logic would then drive perfectly.

furtzy

If the purpose of the camera is to slow people down then why hide it? Just spent a week driving in the UK and all speed cameras had huge warning signs informing you of their presence and the cameras were also painted illuminous yellow. Typical of this country really to use a device intended for road safety to make a few easy quid...grrrrr

overdriver

Have you ever noticed how infrequent speed limit signs are on some stretches? It normally comes up when the road is unfamiliar, and you haven't driven it before, so you haven't "learnt" the limit.


I've spent many miles going " What's the limit here?" as in some places, they seem only to be where the road joins a new one, and often on country roads they are obscured by hedgerows etc.

In the UK, for example, they're everywhere.


The fact that points are now awarded for non-speed issuess clouds this debate, and the government could do away with the whole grey area by awarding points ONLY - no fine. But they won't because it IS about revenue. Why else have a fine? We pay enough road tax to pay for thousands of cameras.

I.S.T.

Saruman wrote:

I have never seen anything like this! If you are heading Dublin bound on the N3 Navan road there is a new speed camera being erected today that motorists will not see!
It will be at the turnoff for Mulhuddart, you know where it leads into the industrial estate but you can then take a right to the village.
Anyway the camera is on THIS road, NOT the N3 but its up on a high pole and facing the N3. Looks like it will be facing traffic too.

Are you sure it's not a traffic management camera? Are there any new markings on the road? There has to be markings on the road at a speed camera as these are used to calculate the speed of the vehicle.

I.S.T.

antodeco wrote:

Speed cameras are placed in areas of high volume. Purposely to catch as many people as possible. The more people you catch, the more penalty points are given. The more penalty points given, the less likely people are going to take chances. This inturn changes driver attitude. If you got 8 points for speeding down the same "safe" road. You will eventually HAVE to not break any road laws, for fear of getting a ban. In 10 years time when everyone is on 6 points (the "law-breakers") people wont speed or take risks. Also the cost of maintaining a speed camera far exceeds the revenue generated.

So let them abolish the fine and just give people the points when they are caught speeding? It will never happen because speed cameras are just an excuse for making more money.

OldmanMondeo

Ok, let me put it like this, this morning, I was driving up the road formual know as the N4. I was keeping within the speed limit, maybe going 5kpm over max. I was over taken by loads of cars and here is the shocker, on Continious Double White line and also Hatched Areas. Ok traffic was held up by a tracotr for about 3km, There was no way to pass because traffic was uncomming and it would have been unsafe. The streches of road that have the hatched areas and double white line are because of the number of people killed there over the years.

So to anyone that complains about "Shooting Fish in a Barrel", cop the F**K on and slow down. I do not want you to put my, my wifes, my Son's or anyother member of my family's life at risk.

Mitch Connor

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Ok, let me put it like this, this morning, I was driving up the road formual know as the N4. I was keeping within the speed limit, maybe going 5kpm over max. I was over taken by loads of cars and here is the shocker, on Continious Double White line and also Hatched Areas. Ok traffic was held up by a tracotr for about 3km, There was no way to pass because traffic was uncomming and it would have been unsafe. The streches of road that have the hatched areas and double white line are because of the number of people killed there over the years.

So to anyone that complains about "Shooting Fish in a Barrel", cop the F**K on and slow down. I do not want you to put my, my wifes, my Son's or anyother member of my family's life at risk.

so you were speeding, and are moaning about other people speeding?

You've missed the point of what people are saying. You're speeding does not appear to be dangerous, at least you don't seem to think it is. However, the people who went past you were a danger on the road - not because they were speeding (though that is obviously part of the reason) but because of the dangerous overtaking. Speed alone doesn't kill - poor driving does. Your speeding appears not to have been poor driving, the others does.

Stark

overdriver wrote:

Have you ever noticed how infrequent speed limit signs are on some stretches? It normally comes up when the road is unfamiliar, and you haven't driven it before, so you haven't "learnt" the limit.


I've spent many miles going " What's the limit here?" as in some places, they seem only to be where the road joins a new one, and often on country roads they are obscured by hedgerows etc.

The Dublin 15 is deadly for that I find. There are a mixture of 50kph and 60kph zones but it's generally a puzzle to figure out which one you're in. Like "Hmm, I entered this road from a 60kph road yesterday so it must be 60kph. But I entered it from a 50kph road the other day and in both cases I didn't see any speed limit signs for this road".

OldmanMondeo

Tauren wrote:

so you were speeding, and are moaning about other people speeding?

I will admit that I did exceed the Speed Limit by a max of 5kph, but this was for a very short period, i.e. passing a cyclist, driving down a hill, I returned to the speed limit very quickley. TBH, I doubt a Guard would have stopped my for that, if he had I would have taken the fine and points no problem. The other people were not only dangerously speeding, easily up to 40kph of the limit, but they were also dangerously overtaking, 4-5 cars at a time, double whites etc.

Tauren wrote:

You've missed the point of what people are saying. You're speeding does not appear to be dangerous, at least you don't seem to think it is. However, the people who went past you were a danger on the road - not because they were speeding (though that is obviously part of the reason) but because of the dangerous overtaking. Speed alone doesn't kill - poor driving does. Your speeding appears not to have been poor driving, the others does.

My point is that to many Irish Drivers think they can drive as they wish, my this be the complete a/hole who cuts everyone up, parks were they want etc, to the "ordinary guy" who think that the speed limits and devices used to enforce these limts are out to get them. They are right the Guards and Camera are out to get people, easy answer, keep within the speed limit. These are well signposted, so the is no reason to exceed them.

Driver attitude in this country needs to change, not speed limits. We need to improve our driving styles, and I mean everyone, me you, the Guards. Every road user needs to think not just about getting from A-B, but how to do so that every other road user can also get from A-B without getting injured, killed or even simply crashed into.

I will stop now because I am going into a rant and off topic.

luckat

It's a standard rule of behavioural science that if you want to moderate a particular behaviour, you must tackle it *when the behaviour happens*.

So sending someone a fine or taking off penalty points days or even months later is not going to work.

What does work is having a bunch of cops on motorcycles who *politely* pull speeders in and fine them immediately.

OldmanMondeo

luckat wrote:

It's a standard rule of behavioural science that if you want to moderate a particular behaviour, you must tackle it *when the behaviour happens*.

So sending someone a fine or taking off penalty points days or even months later is not going to work.

What does work is having a bunch of cops on motorcycles who *politely* pull speeders in and fine them immediately.

I do agree with some of what you said, but, the idea of getting a fine and points a few weeks later will make people slow down in future, or if they see the flash froma gatso that can also work. Example, I think I may have gottena ticket the other week from the Gatso Van, since then I have kept with the speed limit, lesson learnt.

Having Guard's out would be the best answer, but because of the low numbers of Guard's and the high rate of crime, the idea of Speed Cameras seems to be the way forward. Hopefully the calls in this thread for cameras to be out in accident blackspots will come into force with the private camera operators.

Would I be right in saying the the Dept. of Transport will tell the private opperators where the camera can and can not go?

Stark

luckat wrote:

What does work is having a bunch of cops on motorcycles who *politely* pull speeders in and fine them immediately.

Assuming the garda in question doesn't let the person off for whatever reason ("fancy car", that one still makes me sick).

There's something appealing about speed cameras and their impartiality.

jameshayes

milltown wrote:

"Outrageous", LOL

If they hid the speed limit signs, that would be outrageous.

Haha...

blastman

We don't need speed detection cameras, we need moron detection cameras.

OldmanMondeo

blastman wrote:

We don't need speed detection cameras, we need moron detection cameras.

They would probably overload and blow up....:D

PoleStar

I always find the people who bitch and moan about speed cameras to be quite amusing.

They might aswell come out and say " I speed on a regular basis and I find it quite irritating that I may get caught and be punished ".

Its similar to people who bitch and moan about random breath testing who might aswell say "I drink and drive and put people's lives at risk and I dont care".

The fact is, speed cameras only apply to people that speed. And considering that speed (along with alcohol) i.e. human STUPIDITY is one of the biggest contributors to road traffic accidents, then great.

People go on about placement of speed cameras. And the fact is that yes they are often placed where they will catch people. Why? To change attitudes. Yes it would be great if we could rely on people to drive safely but unfortunately despite any number of tv ad campaigns, people still drive like lunatics. The only way to stop these individuals is to punish them so that they may stop in the future. Unfortunately, like drink driving, the only thing that stops people is a perception that if they speed they will get caught.

To give a personal example of stupidity. Yesterday someone was tailgating me only 2 days after the Naas crash. I stopped the car and approached the female and said in a nice way that she will cause a crash someday. What was the reply? Unless you are a guard f*** off. People like these will never respond to campaigns, they will only learn by use of deterrants.


AGAIN I EMPHASISE: if you dont speed then the speed cameras dont apply to you. I dont speed, I dont care if there are a million speed cameras. And as for people who say " Oh but I might have just popped or drifted up a bit". If you drive a car, you are in charge of a potentially lethal weapon. Its up to you to be aware of your speed etc. If you are not up to that simple task of monitoring your speed then perhaps you should take the bus.

sneakyST

I think they would be better off putting the cameras further down the Navan road when it hits the residential area. The amount of people doing 80-100kmh in the 50 zone in unreal. I dont give a damn if someone does 110kmh in 100kmh zone on a dual carrigeway if conditions permit.

RobAMerc

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Ok, let me put it like this, this morning, I was driving up the road formual know as the N4. I was keeping within the speed limit, maybe going 5kpm over max. I was over taken by loads of cars and here is the shocker, on Continious Double White line and also Hatched Areas. Ok traffic was held up by a tracotr for about 3km, There was no way to pass because traffic was uncomming and it would have been unsafe. The streches of road that have the hatched areas and double white line are because of the number of people killed there over the years.

So to anyone that complains about "Shooting Fish in a Barrel", cop the F**K on and slow down. I do not want you to put my, my wifes, my Son's or anyother member of my family's life at risk.

This is one of the most nonsensical posts I have ever read !
You were actually speeding - but thats ok coz you were going down hill past a bike yet to all the people who overtook on the double white you tell them to "slow down" even though they may not have been speeding!

Just show's how a bit of media pow wow and deflection tactics by the government can be totally swollowed hook line and sinker in this county.

What if the camera had been where you were just passing the bike ?
You'd have been done for speeding while the people overtaking on the white lines will have nothing done to them - who is more in the wrong ?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It's amazing the number of morons coming on here complaining about Speed Cameras. If you obey the law then they are nothing to get high and mighty over. So what if they are hidden - you are not going to notice if you are keeping within the speed limit. So what if they are in high volume areas - you are not going to notice if you are keeping within the speed limit. As for the notion that 110kmh is ok in a 100kmh area if conditions allow - what a muppet! The speed limit is the speed limit. It's idiots who think they are good enough as drivers to exceed the limit safely who cause accidents.

sneakyST

Gwendolyn Helpful Mango wrote:

I As for the notion that 110kmh is ok in a 100kmh area if conditions allow - what a muppet! The speed limit is the speed limit. It's idiots who think they are good enough as drivers to exceed the limit safely who cause accidents.

Well if you cant control a car 10kph over the limit on a dry straight road then you shouldnt be let near a car- i bet you sit in the overtaking lane as well.twat

OldmanMondeo

RobAMerc wrote:

You were actually speeding - but thats ok coz you were going down hill past a bike yet to all the people who overtook on the double white you tell them to "slow down" even though they may not have been speeding!

Yes, I did exceed the speed limit, by a MAX 5kph, infact, I probably went no more than 3kph. I did not overtake on a Double White or in a Hatched area.

RobAMerc wrote:

Just show's how a bit of media pow wow and deflection tactics by the government can be totally swollowed hook line and sinker in this county.

Now that's just pure BS. Please explain this comment.

RobAMerc wrote:

What if the camera had been where you were just passing the bike? You'd have been done for speeding while the people overtaking on the white lines will have nothing done to them - who is more in the wrong ?

Even if there was a camera, I would not have been going fast enough to get a ticket. IOvertaking on double Whites is different to Speeding. There are several junction on this strech and a number of people have been killed over the last few years, this is the reason as to why the double white has been put in place.

RobAMerc wrote:

This is one of the most nonsensical posts I have ever read !

Ditto.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

sneakyST wrote:

Well if you cant(sic) control a car 10kph over the limit on a dry straight road then you shouldnt(sic) be let near a car- i(sic) bet you sit in the overtaking lane as well.twat

There it goes again! The motoring muppet. It's nothing to do with if you or I can control a car at 10kmh over the speed limit. It's all to do with obeying the legal limit. BTW: I use the overtaking lane as prescribed.

sneakyST

Gwendolyn Helpful Mango wrote:

There it goes again! The motoring muppet. It's nothing to do with if you or I can control a car at 10kmh over the speed limit. It's all to do with obeying the legal limit.

I agree but my point was to have the cameras in better places

Gwendolyn Helpful Mango wrote:

BTW: I use the overtaking lane as prescribed

I apologise so

Saruman

I think one of the reasons people complain about the cameras is that its unfair. Take my dad, we were going to athlone one day and he was driving. He drives an automatic and most of the way he was between 80 to 95kmh or so... however we came across one of those idiot motorists who does not just drive slow.. they swerve slightly, hit the brakes speed up.. slow down etc.. my dad got sick of it and over took him and the road started to go down hill again. Anyway for the few seconds he overtook him he speeded up and without realising it he went over the limit, maybe to 110kph and then we noticed the Gatso van.

Now point is, the gatso might not bother with it because they saw what happened. This was the only time he exceeded the limit. However if there was a camera there, especially a hidden camera then all his careful driving goes for nothing because no one on this entire planet obeys the speed limit at all times.. they cant.
I have been in places where there is a 5km/h speed limit.. i mean its not even possible to make the car go that slow as pedestrians break that speed ffs.
So this idea of “If you obey the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about” is rubbish! No one can possibly obey the speed limit at all times.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Saruman wrote:

No one can possibly obey the speed limit at all times.

Remember it's a Limit not a Target.

Stark

Gwendolyn Helpful Mango wrote:

Remember it's a Limit not a Target.

There's a section on the DoE driving test report called "progress on the straight" which begs to differ.

PoleStar

So you overtook someone and may have got a ticket?

So what, if you did tough monkey!

If you choose to break the limit then thats your choice and if caught you must pay the penalty.

Another motorist driving slow is not an indication to speed to overtake.

Just because a 100kph speed limit is there doesnt mean you have to drive at 100kph. Not everyone is in a rush!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

PoleStar wrote:

So you overtook someone and may have got a ticket?

So what, if you did tough monkey!

If you choose to break the limit then thats your choice and if caught you must pay the penalty.

Another motorist driving slow is not an indication to speed to overtake.

Just because a 100kph speed limit is there doesnt mean you have to drive at 100kph. Not everyone is in a rush!

Well said!!

Stark

PoleStar wrote:

Just because a 100kph speed limit is there doesnt mean you have to drive at 100kph. Not everyone is in a rush!

Not everyone uses the roads for a Sunday drive either. I remember leaving myself 3 hours to make a ferry before and taking a route that normally takes 2 hours. It was on a bank holiday weekend and I nearly missed the ferry because I was stuck behind dawdling drivers so many times.

PoleStar wrote:

Another motorist driving slow is not an indication to speed to overtake.

There would be no need to speed when overtaking if people were actually observant when out on their leisurely drives. The RotR cleary state that you must not increase your speed when someone is overtaking you. That doesn't stop idiots from hitting the gas as soon as they see a clear stretch regardless of whether someone is in the middle of an overtaking manouver. Before you take the high ground, overtaking someone is legal when you have a clear stretch and broken white line in the centre of the road. Speeding up when being overtaken is not.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Stark wrote:

There's a section on the DoE driving test report called "progress on the straight" which begs to differ.

There is quite a difference between the driving test criterion of failing to make reasonable progress on the straight and any compulsory requirement to drive at the maximum speed limit permitted in the zone.

Stark

A good driver should be driving close to the speed limit where it's safe to do so. In many countries, you'll be pulled for creating an obstruction if you don't.

PoleStar

And one more thing

I just re-read the title "outrageous HIDDEN camera"


In my opinion they all should be hidden. If you didnt know where and when you were going to have to "slow down" then maybe people would drive within the limits at all times.

How many times have you seen the brake lights on the car in front light up when the speed camera is passed.


I know however that in the UK there was a problem with this when intoduced some years ago as some eejit "clever" lawyer maintained that taking a photo without someones knowledge was not acceptable and people started getting off the hook.

OldmanMondeo

PoleStar wrote:

I know however that in the UK there was a problem with this when intoduced some years ago as some eejit "clever" lawyer maintained that taking a photo without someones knowledge was not acceptable and people started getting off the hook.

there was also something about the camera being hidden and that it was found to be illegal. For what I gather all camera in the UK have to be signposted.

I.S.T.

Stark wrote:

A good driver should be driving close to the speed limit where it's safe to do so. In many countries, you'll be pulled for creating an obstruction if you don't.

That is quite true.

When I was taking driving lessons I was told by the instructor that when doing the test I should drive between 30 & 35mph (but no more than 35) in 30mph zones on main roads (i.e. not in housing estates). He said that if I drive slower than 30mph I will be failed for lack of progress. So I took his advice, driving at between 33 & 35mph in 30 zones. I passed.

PoleStar

I totally agree that a good driver will drive with adequate progress.

And I definitely agree that people that hit the gas when you go to overtake are complete idiots.


Still doesnt make speeding ok. And while the eejit in front of you might be a crap driver and all over the place, thats called tough. If you speed when overtaking and are caught, you are the one breaking the law.

TOUGH.

If you wanna change the law maybe lobby your politician.

Although with the road safety record of irish drivers I dont think you will get very far.