Introduction of Speed Cameras

Niall1234

Ireland to me can be a strange strange country at times.

We complain about the government constantly yet vote them in time and time again.

The issue of speed cameras is no different.

On one hand, we are appauled by the deaths on our roads. The Irish media has a lot to do with this, exagerating statistics and not mentioning figures which show reducing deaths yada yada.

Anyways, on the other hand, most people I talk to hate speed traps etc.

So it raises the point, if so many people are against speed cameras (I'd say the majority are) why is the Irish population just letting the Government install speed cameras.

I have a lot of problems with speed cameras.

1. They cost an awful lot.
2. They are placed on Motorways where deaths simply do not happen.
3. They only catch speeders. Do nothing for dangerous driving.
4. Deaths went up in the UK after their introduction.
5. Instead more Gardai could be hired to clamp down on dangerous driving.

javaboy

Niall1234 wrote: »

We complain about the government constantly yet vote them in time and time again.

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always get in

DonJose

I'd like to see surveillance cameras placed at traffic lights and roundabouts to catch people breaking red lights, people using mobiles and people not indicating at roundabouts.

Niall1234

DonJose wrote: »

I'd like to see surveillance cameras placed at traffic lights and roundabouts to catch people breaking red lights, people using mobiles and people not indicating at roundabouts.

Saw a person going straight through a red light a few nights ago. They were stopped in front of me. I came up to the back of them. They just took off straight through the junction with the light red. Absolutely crazy.

conneem-TT

I'd like to see surveillance cameras placed at traffic lights and roundabouts to catch people breaking red lights, people using mobiles and people not indicating at roundabouts.

I agree, it's not speed but a lack of driver awareness combined with alot of impatience that I see when I notice bad driving on the roads.

Steve

I think we should do as they ask

Everyone SLOW DOWN, stay within the speed limit!

tell your friends, tell your family, tell strangers: SLOW DOWN!

if enough of us do it then they won't generate enough fines and go bust - end of problem!

The gov are expecting to generate €70m a year from this scam - that's after the operator gets their cut. :mad::mad:

Tropheus

It all depends on where they put them. If they put them in the same places where they put mobile speed traps, then I definitely don't agree. That's just a gimmick to fill the government coffers.

90% of speed traps I have seen are on wide open roads, usually in the dry and some with an inappropriately low speed limit. It's like shooting fish in a barrell.

If they put them in real accident black spots on back roads, I'll support them, but I doubt that will happen. It will be motorsways and dual carriage ways where the money is.

D_murph

ksimpson wrote: »

It all depends on where they put them. If they put them in the same places where they put mobile speed traps, then I definitely don't agree. That's just a gimmick to fill the government coffers.

90% of speed traps I have seen are on wide open roads, usually in the dry and some with an inappropriately low speed limit. It's like shooting fish in a barrell.

glad to see that you have sense . these speed scameras are just going to be another method to squeeze more money out of the irish motorist.

there will claims that they will be put on the dangerous places where accidents happen but in reality you can look forward to a load of motorway photography :rolleyes:

Niall1234

My view is that the gov is doing this for three reasons.

1. They want to be seen doing something about road safety, even if speed cameras aren't going to do jack ****.
2. To make money. If this wasn't true, they would drop fines and have only penalty points for speeding.
3. To shut Gay Byrne up.

briano1984

dont see the speed cameras doing anything to helping dangerous drivings. the stupid thing bout speed cameras is that they have a sign signalling there's one 20 feet ahead. everyone comes to know where the cameras are, slow down and then go back to speeding. its all bout getting more money and catching ppl who dont realise.

Niall1234

briano1984 wrote: »

dont see the speed cameras doing anything to helping dangerous drivings. the stupid thing bout speed cameras is that they have a sign signalling there's one 20 feet ahead. everyone comes to know where the cameras are, slow down and then go back to speeding. its all bout getting more money and catching ppl who dont realise.

Is it written in the law that there must be signs up to indicate a speed camera ahead ?

briano1984

i have no idea but any time theres a speed camera anywhere its sign posted previously. one on m50 after dundrum and then theres another on the n4 near lucan. maybe i could have it wrong but im pretty sure they're all signposted.

Steve

Niall1234 wrote: »

Is it written in the law that there must be signs up to indicate a speed camera ahead ?

No - their original plan was to have it overt for 6 months, after that they'd be hidin in the hedges.

Seth Brundle

stevec wrote: »

The gov are expecting to generate €70m a year from this scam - that's after the operator gets their cut. :mad::mad:

WHich is exactly where I have a problem with the proposed system. What is this figure based upon? Its acknowledging failure before it starts!

Niall1234 wrote: »

Is it written in the law that there must be signs up to indicate a speed camera ahead ?

Is it actually written into law or is that just a myth?
ANyhow, I presume its for fixed cameras only. Mobile checks don't need signposting.

WHITE_P

If they want to stop speeding on motorway's / dual carriageways, they should put up average speed camera's and let people know they are there and how they work, (ie measure your average speed over a given distance).

Then it would be only the really stupid, or non observant drivers who get caught, these are usually the same drivers that do all the other dangerous sh!t on our roads that really p!sses other motorists off.

We all know the one's, on the mobile while tailgating, won't move back into the left lane when its clear, that sort of thing.

This new proposal is just stealth taxation and window dressing.

Put the money into driver education, and improved roads.

Steve

WHITE_P wrote: »

We all know the one's, on the mobile while tailgating, won't move back into the left lane when its clear, that sort of thing.

Yes we all know them - theyre the ones that sit in the outside lane at 10kmh under the speed limit and frustrate everyone else.

How are the cameras going to stop this?

javaboy

stevec wrote: »

Yes we all know them - theyre the ones that sit in the outside lane at 10kmh under the speed limit and frustrate everyone else.

How are the cameras going to stop this?

They're not obviously but as everybody's favourite supermarket/petrol station/mortgage provider/car insurer says:

Cyrus

Niall1234 wrote: »

Ireland to me can be a strange strange country at times.

We complain about the government constantly yet vote them in time and time again.

The issue of speed cameras is no different.

On one hand, we are appauled by the deaths on our roads. The Irish media has a lot to do with this, exagerating statistics and not mentioning figures which show reducing deaths yada yada.

Anyways, on the other hand, most people I talk to hate speed traps etc.

So it raises the point, if so many people are against speed cameras (I'd say the majority are) why is the Irish population just letting the Government install speed cameras.

I have a lot of problems with speed cameras.

1. They cost an awful lot.
2. They are placed on Motorways where deaths simply do not happen.
3. They only catch speeders. Do nothing for dangerous driving.
4. Deaths went up in the UK after their introduction.
5. Instead more Gardai could be hired to clamp down on dangerous driving.

Lads to be fair the amount of misinformation on this forum regarding the camera project is staggering.

A private co will be selected from those that tendered, they will be paid an hourly rate based on hours spend monitoring speeds, payment will have nothing to do with no of prosecutable images. There are 600 or so accident black spots identified and thats where the efforts will be concentrated.

Numerous studies have shown that the introduction of mobile cameras reduces speed and every 5km/h reduction in overall speed in an area reduces raod accident trauma by a multiple.

im not saying im for them but everyone is assuming there will be cameras all over motorways and the operator will be paid based on the no of people caught, thats just wrong

WHITE_P

stevec wrote: »

Yes we all know them - theyre the ones that sit in the outside lane at 10kmh under the speed limit and frustrate everyone else.

How are the cameras going to stop this?

Camera's won't stop this and you are right about them fustrating everyone else.

However if the camera's are there to watch the speeder's, then maybe if the Traffic Cops, were given a mandate to tackle the other problems, we might see less of this stupid behaviour.

Before anyone else say's it, I know this sounds like a load of Bullsh!t. I'm not in favour of my taxes being p!ssed away on these camera's so I can have more of my hard earned cash extorted from me, by a private company for the state.

Speed is just an easy target for the politicians, and its something they can be seen to take action against, even if that action amounts to nothing and has zero affect on the death toll on our roads. Better to be seen to do something than nothing at all, in their minds.

Steve

WHITE_P wrote: »

However if the camera's are there to watch the speeder's, then maybe if the Traffic Cops, were given a mandate to tackle the other problems, we might see less of this stupid behaviour.

I agree however, as it's not illegal to be stupid, what can the cops do?

I would love to see more traffic corps units out there with the task of educating drivers who are just plain dumb and are oblivious to the effects their actions have on other road users.

WHITE_P wrote: »

Before anyone else say's it, I know this sounds like a load of Bullsh!t. I'm not in favour of my taxes being p!ssed away on these camera's so I can have more of my hard earned cash extorted from me, by a private company for the state.

It won't actually cost the taxpayer anything unless the system actually works and stops people speeding.
The gov. have already admitted that it won't work by saying they expect a €70m profit after they pay the €25m running cost to the operator.

Even if they pledged to ring-fence the revenue back into providing better policing it would be a consolation. This has never been mentioned.
The money they make will go towards another pay rise for the bertie bunch and don't forget mary harney who needs the government jet to go to the superbowl every year.

WHITE_P

stevec wrote: »

I agree however, as it's not illegal to be stupid, what can the cops do?

I would love to see more traffic corps units out there with the task of educating drivers who are just plain dumb and are oblivious to the effects their actions have on other road users.



It won't actually cost the taxpayer anything unless the system actually works and stops people speeding.
The gov. have already admitted that it won't work by saying they expect a €70m profit after they pay the €25m running cost to the operator.

Even if they pledged to ring-fence the revenue back into providing better policing it would be a consolation. This has never been mentioned.
The money they make will go towards another pay rise for the bertie bunch and don't forget mary harney who needs the government jet to go to the superbowl every year.

I know what you mean. what a wonderful country we live in.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

DonJose wrote: »

I'd like to see surveillance cameras placed at traffic lights and roundabouts to catch people breaking red lights, people using mobiles and people not indicating at roundabouts.

But not catch people speeding???

ghouse

Apollo Hollow Waterworks wrote: »

But not catch people speeding???

I think the general idea is that there are much worse, and more serious driving offences than speeding. Most of which can be fixed by adequate training. Speeding has never been a large factor in the number of accidents, but I agree that it can increase the severity of accidents.

But you and I both know that these cameras will not be placed in locations where they can save lives. They will be posted on large motorways, dual carriageways and busy city roads where feck all accidents happen, not to change behaviour. Not to change thinking patterns.

Simply, to generate revenue and make Bertie look good with a sudden increase in detections.

And I for one, think it's disgusting.

D_murph

ghouse wrote: »

I think the general idea is that there are much worse, and more serious driving offences than speeding. Most of which can be fixed by adequate training. Speeding has never been a large factor in the number of accidents, but I agree that it can increase the severity of accidents.

But you and I both know that these cameras will not be placed in locations where they can save lives. They will be posted on large motorways, dual carriageways and busy city roads where feck all accidents happen, not to change behaviour. Not to change thinking patterns.

Simply, to generate revenue and make Bertie look good with a sudden increase in detections.

And I for one, think it's disgusting.

all very true and well said .

Bertie can look to the people with something to hang up like a carrot in front of a donkey and say theyre making progress.

worst part is that there are a lot of brainwashed morons out there that welcome this, yet another infringement on our freedom and privacy by this nanny state :rolleyes:. no capacity to think for themselves :rolleyes:.

the money they will spend on this load of BS would be better spent on driver training and improvement of what passes for roads here IMO.

whatever happened to the Irish fighting spirit that was here less than 100 years ago i wonder? i guess its ok when our own try to screw us apparently :rolleyes: although i suspect that a few burnt out scameras will be evidence that some still exists here after all

javaboy

D_murph wrote: »

all very true and well said .

Bertie can look to the people with something to hang up like a carrot in front of a donkey and say theyre making progress.

worst part is that there are a lot of brainwashed morons out there that welcome this, yet another infringement on our freedom and privacy by this nanny state :rolleyes:. no capacity to think for themselves :rolleyes:.

the money they will spend on this load of BS would be better spent on driver training and improvement of what passes for roads here IMO.

whatever happened to the Irish fighting spirit that was here less than 100 years ago i wonder? i guess its ok when our own try to screw us apparently :rolleyes: although i suspect that a few burnt out scameras will be evidence that some still exists here after all

Your freedom and privacy? You don't have the freedom to speed and I don't think there's a privacy issue here if you're on a public road.

"the money they will spend on this" - A lot of people seem convinced that it's a revenue generation tactic so won't there be a profit to the government if that's true?

While I agree that driver training and the state of the roads should be higher on the list of priorities than rolling out heaps of speed cameras, I think that you just want to be allowed break the law. I think the comparison between the current government introducing a load of cameras and the oppression we suffered at the hands of them next door ~100 years is a bit hysterical.

Speed limits are not the modern equivalent of the Penal code. The ROTR are there for safe driving. The selective enforcement of certain 'easy target' rules may be a bit cynical, but [mounts high horse] if you don't break the speed limit, you shouldn't have a problem.


One more thing, I resent the "brainwashed morons" and "no capacity to think for themselves" comments.

Steve

javaboy wrote: »

"the money they will spend on this" - A lot of people seem convinced that it's a revenue generation tactic so won't there be a profit to the government if that's true?

I would be so happy to be proved wrong here - the gov. are expecting to make €70m per annum. By this they are admitting it doesn't work!

javaboy

stevec wrote: »

I would be so happy to be proved wrong here - the gov. are expecting to make €70m per annum. By this they are admitting it doesn't work!

I'm not disputing that there is a revenue generation aspect to this decision, I was just pointing out the contradiction of complaining on one hand that the money is being misspent and then complaining about revenue generation.

I agree with you about the annual forecasts though. If they were expected to work well, then the money generated each year should fall.

orbital83

Undoubtedly some of the idiots out there will be caught by this initiative, but they'll be in good company with all the rest of us unless some common sense is taken.
I have visions of a private operator approaching their task with all the gusto of Dublin clampers... meander up to 101km/h in the wrong place on a national road six times in three years, and you're getting the bus.

A little more imagination please? Something other than switching to driving on the right.

Some of the other implications of this:
* Drivers will become preoccupied with watching their speedo instead of the road
* "slow overtaking" on WS2 roads will result in a greater risk of head-on collisions, or being trapped on the wrong side of the road as the target space is filled by the time the maneouvre is completed.
* inability to safely overtake any vehicle travelling within 20km/h of speed limit will lead to frustration and resultant tailgating, dangerous driving etc
* carnage will continue as cameras fail to detect pedestrians disobeying rules, cyclists disobeying rules, drunks staggering along country roads late at night, idiots driving too slowly for the prevailing conditions, drug drivers etc

javaboy

John J wrote: »

* "slow overtaking" on WS2 roads will result in a greater risk of head-on collisions, or being trapped on the wrong side of the road as the target space is filled by the time the maneouvre is completed.
* inability to safely overtake any vehicle travelling within 20km/h of speed limit will lead to frustration and resultant tailgating, dangerous driving etc

Have to agree with you on this point. The 70km/h in an 80 zone types can be a real catch 22 but unless there's a big long empty stretch ahead I just err on the side of caution. A novel idea might be to use these same cameras to enforce minimum speeds:D

John J wrote: »

* carnage will continue as cameras fail to detect pedestrians disobeying rules, cyclists disobeying rules, drunks staggering along country roads late at night, idiots driving too slowly for the prevailing conditions, drug drivers etc

In fairness nobody's talking about disbanding the traffic corps/Gardai. The cameras won't reduce welfare benefit fraud either but it doesn't mean they should be scrapped.

There might even be a positive knock on effect if less manpower has to be devoted to catching speeders.

D_murph

javaboy wrote: »

Your freedom and privacy? You don't have the freedom to speed and I don't think there's a privacy issue here if you're on a public road.

"the money they will spend on this" - A lot of people seem convinced that it's a revenue generation tactic so won't there be a profit to the government if that's true?

While I agree that driver training and the state of the roads should be higher on the list of priorities than rolling out heaps of speed cameras, I think that you just want to be allowed break the law. I think the comparison between the current government introducing a load of cameras and the oppression we suffered at the hands of them next door ~100 years is a bit hysterical.

Speed limits are not the modern equivalent of the Penal code. The ROTR are there for safe driving. The selective enforcement of certain 'easy target' rules may be a bit cynical, but [mounts high horse] if you don't break the speed limit, you shouldn't have a problem.


One more thing, I resent the "brainwashed morons" and "no capacity to think for themselves" comments.

well it seems to me that we are letting ourselves be herded like sheep by our own government who are doing it in a more sneaky, "its for your own good" way. its not violent opression but the results will be the same.

i dont see why actual competent motorists should suffer this load of crap because of a minority of idiots who cant actually drive properly despite their years of "experience" :rolleyes:

we all drift over the limit at times but thats not the same as blatantly speeding but these machines will not be able to tell the difference so you might get knocked off that high horse some day when your leg gets heavy on the pedal in the wrong place

you resent the brainwashed morons who cant think for themselves comment? :eek:

why?

are you one????? :rolleyes:

because if you are not, then you should not have a problem :D

javaboy

D_murph wrote: »

well it seems to me that we are letting ourselves be herded like sheep by our own government who are doing it in a more sneaky, "its for your own good" way. its not violent opression but the results will be the same.

i dont see why actual competent motorists should suffer this load of crap because of a minority of idiots who cant actually drive properly despite their years of "experience" :rolleyes:

we all drift over the limit at times but thats not the same as blatantly speeding but these machines will not be able to tell the difference so you might get knocked off that high horse some day when your leg gets heavy on the pedal in the wrong place

you resent the brainwashed morons who cant think for themselves comment? :eek:

why?

are you one????? :rolleyes:

because if you are not, then you should not have a problem :D

Ok for a start the results of violent oppression at the hands of a colonial power will not be the same as the results of a government's somewhat misguided obsession with one aspect of the rules of the road. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

What load of crap are you 'suffering'? Having to obey the speed limits? If you're not happy with the speed limits, campaign to get them raised where appropriate. Contact your local representative or something constructive.

You'll be the first to know when I get caught for speeding. Besides, I don't have license plates on my high horse so the cameras can't catch me.

I'm not a brainwashed moron but your original statement was "worst part is that there are a lot of brainwashed morons out there that welcome this, yet another infringement on our freedom and privacy by this nanny state ."

I welcome this move (although not necessarily the reasons why it is happening, which I suspect has a lot to do with €€€) and I resent being considered a 'brainwashed moron' because of it. You can make your point without insulting a vast amount of people in one sweeping statement.

D_murph

javaboy wrote: »

Ok for a start the results of violent oppression at the hands of a colonial power will not be the same as the results of a government's somewhat misguided obsession with one aspect of the rules of the road. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

What load of crap are you 'suffering'? Having to obey the speed limits? If you're not happy with the speed limits, campaign to get them raised where appropriate. Contact your local representative or something constructive.

You'll be the first to know when I get caught for speeding. Besides, I don't have license plates on my high horse so the cameras can't catch me.

I'm not a brainwashed moron but your original statement was "worst part is that there are a lot of brainwashed morons out there that welcome this, yet another infringement on our freedom and privacy by this nanny state ."

I welcome this move (although not necessarily the reasons why it is happening, which I suspect has a lot to do with €€€) and I resent being considered a 'brainwashed moron' because of it. You can make your point without insulting a vast amount of people in one sweeping statement.

im glad you agree with the fact that its a misguided obsession. speed is but one factor of many in road deaths. unfortunately speed guns are not yet designed to detect the others such as dangerous overtaking, poor lane discipline etc.

im not suffering that much yet because the scameras have not been installed yet, thats yet to come :rolleyes:

theres a big difference between speeding (as the law states) and actually driving dangerously also FYI but a machine taking pictures on the side of the road cant tell this because its programmed to do its job.

programmed like a lot of people who actually believe this crap will change anything. auntie Gaybo must be delighted :rolleyes:. strange thing is that a lot of these fatal accidents are in the early hours of the morning and single car ones also and on back roads. you never hear that drinking and driving was a factor (as it surely must be) but speed speed speed. nothing else but the easy target :rolleyes:

speed cameras are about revenue and im glad you can see that. it looks great on the governments cv that they put them in place to do something to help the situation so its win-win for them but in reality it will not solve the problem and if you dont see that then you can carry on being deluded for all i care.

take a look at the poll results for example also while youre at it.

you are the only one that has reacted like this so far to my statements (which i still stand by btw) and that much alone speaks volumes in itself IMO.

"one sweeping statement" you say? i do believe in efficiency

javaboy

D_murph wrote: »

im glad you agree with the fact that its a misguided obsession. speed is but one factor of many in road deaths. unfortunately speed guns are not yet designed to detect the others such as dangerous overtaking, poor lane discipline etc.

im not suffering that much yet because the scameras have not been installed yet, thats yet to come :rolleyes:

theres a big difference between speeding (as the law states) and actually driving dangerously also FYI but a machine taking pictures on the side of the road cant tell this because its programmed to do its job.

programmed like a lot of people who actually believe this crap will change anything. auntie Gaybo must be delighted :rolleyes:. strange thing is that a lot of these fatal accidents are in the early hours of the morning and single car ones also and on back roads. you never hear that drinking and driving was a factor (as it surely must be) but speed speed speed. nothing else but the easy target :rolleyes:

speed cameras are about revenue and im glad you can see that. it looks great on the governments cv that they put them in place to do something to help the situation so its win-win for them but in reality it will not solve the problem and if you dont see that then you can carry on being deluded for all i care.

take a look at the poll results for example also while youre at it.

you are the only one that has reacted like this so far to my statements (which i still stand by btw) and that much alone speaks volumes in itself IMO.

"one sweeping statement" you say? i do believe in efficiency

Yes I think the obsession with speed is misguided but it is a factor in many road accidents and while it may not be the cause, it often increases the likelihood of a fatality when an accident does happen.

Speed cameras don't detect dangerous driving/overtaking etc. but they may reduce the burden on the traffic corps allowing them to spend more time enforcing the very things you mentioned.

I didn't say speed cameras are about revenue. I said I think the decision to bring them in now has been made for reasons related to money. Specifically, I think the government would not bring them in if they were expected to be a significant loss maker and also it is the most cost effective way of getting good figures/stats in the papers to say they are doing something about road safety. Speed cameras are not in themselves about money. If there were only penalty points but no fines for being caught, would you have a problem?

Please don't call me deluded. I'm not for a moment suggesting that speed cameras are a panacea that will stop all road accidents. I never did if you read my posts. I would rather see an announcement that 1,000 new Gardai were being recruited for the Traffic Corps who will be able to detect dangerous driving which cameras cannot.

gurramok

I voted yes and that is only because it see it as a good thing where the deaths happen on back roads and i assume thats where they'll plonk them.
If they start putting these cameras on safe roads as a revenue generating operation, it's two fingers to them! :mad:

Seth Brundle

gurramok wrote: »

I voted yes and that is only because it see it as a good thing where the deaths happen on back roads and i assume thats where they'll plonk them.
If they start putting these cameras on safe roads as a revenue generating operation, it's two fingers to them! :mad:

I suspect that many of these occur whilst under the posted limit but still too fast for the road.

eringobragh

gurramok wrote: »

I voted yes and that is only because it see it as a good thing where the deaths happen on back roads and i assume thats where they'll plonk them.

You know that they are going to be plonked in lovely little 'nestegg' spots.

gurramok wrote: »

If they start putting these cameras on safe roads as a revenue generating operation, it's two fingers to them! :mad:

2 Fingers ...and 80euro of your hard earned money..to be shared with a private company :rolleyes: ....Would you like a bag with that!!

gurramok

Agree there, it makes you think.
As most deaths occur on non heavy trafficked roads, how are they going to make it break even then due to low volumes?

More i think about this, i need to rescind my vote!

Steve

gurramok wrote: »

how are they going to make it break even then due to low volumes?

They're not - they're expecting to make €70m a year so guess where they'll be putting them.

D_murph

^X2. id put money on it :rolleyes:

Sandwich

Its better than nothing.
Every speeder thats caught is a good thing, but the habitual speeders will probably just get to know the locations and the benefit will be limited. The best strategy would be to place them on the high volume speeding routes (especially the temporary resticted ones, M50 etc) for revenue maximisation and maximum points issuing. Then plough all the fine revenue into a big increase in mobile speed traps. The aim should be to maximise the catches/points issued with a zero-sum revenue outcome.

Guy:Incognito

John J wrote: »

meander up to 101km/h in the wrong place on a national road six times in three years, and you're getting the bus.

People always trot this out as a reason. It's just not true. To "meander" up to 101kmph your speedo is probably showing anywhere from 108 to 115 so you know well you are over the limit.

I was checking with te sat nav the other day and at 35 mph on my speedo I was actually doing 31.

Automan

I was driving over in England yesterday (300 odd miles), while on the motorway I came across about 7 places which had the tell tale sign of fixed speed cameras (white lines in parallel on the road) but not one speed camera to be seen (were removed), the only place I seen a fixed speed camera was in a little village, (I think it was outside a school not sure of that).
As I was driving on the motorways I was at the limit while many cars flew by me, I dont see a problem with this as these roads were super and every one stayed in the right lanes there was no lane hoggers, nearly every one stayed in the left lane even though there was 3 lanes and only used the middle and outside lanes for overtaking, they defiantly know how to drive over there.
Also on the single lane roads people over took each other while the person being overtaken most of the time would move in a little to help the overtaking car, there was no beeping of the horn, flashing of the lights, damming you to hell for doing that evil thing, overtaking (unlike in Ireland were all the above happen).
There was also a lot of visual police on the roads either waiting at some junctions or driving in the traffic.
This really did show me how backwards this country is with regards to driving education/attitude, roads, policing.
And the sad thing is while they seem to be taking the cameras out (motorways) we seem to be putting them in.

Seth Brundle

Sandwich wrote: »

Its better than nothing.
Every speeder thats caught is a good thing, but the habitual speeders will probably just get to know the locations and the benefit will be limited.

Why do you say its a good thing? Are you of the opinion that all speed traps are placed in appropriate locations? Can you see any justification for exceeding the speed limit?
Is everyone who is caught speeding being a danger to other road users?
Feck it. I know you are deliberately trying to troll here so I'll say no more!

Niall1234

Some people just don't understand the difference between the "speed limit" and what is "a safe speed to drive at".

The two are very different and a lot of the time, the speed limits are totally inaccurate for standard of road in question.

Just look at the old Cork to Fermoy road. Reduced to 80 kph. Is it fair to get 2 penalty points and a 80 Euro fine if caught doing 100 kph on this road, eventhough 2 year previously when it carried a lot more traffic it was perfectly acceptable.

Sandwich, you are a troll looking for a response.

Guy:Incognito

Niall1234 wrote: »

Some people just don't understand the difference between the "speed limit" and what is "a safe speed to drive at".

The two are very different and a lot of the time, the speed limits are totally inaccurate for standard of road in question.

Just look at the old Cork to Fermoy road. Reduced to 80 kph. Is it fair to get 2 penalty points and a 80 Euro fine if caught doing 100 kph on this road, eventhough 2 year previously when it carried a lot more traffic it was perfectly acceptable.

Sandwich, you are a troll looking for a response.

Is it ok for me to decide what other laws I should and shouldnt obey at my own dicetion? Why is speeding any different. As already said, if theres a speed limit you dont agree with and have valid reasons (obviously better ones han whatever got the limit lowered in the first place) take it to your local TD.

Sandwich

kbannon wrote: »

Why do you say its a good thing? Are you of the opinion that all speed traps are placed in appropriate locations? Can you see any justification for exceeding the speed limit?
Is everyone who is caught speeding being a danger to other road users?
Feck it. I know you are deliberately trying to troll here so I'll say no more!

Not a troll at all, and annoying when your contribution is dismissed as such rather than accepted as a valid point of view.

Why do you say its a good thing? Because every little contribution to discouraging speeding is a step in the right direction. Yes it will be implemented imperfectly. Some people will be annoyed that they are placed in locations where to exceed the stated limit is still safe. But an imperfect implementation which hase some positive effect is better than none at all . Not whats is normal in this country I know - we talk for ever about finding a solution that suits everybody - and end up doing nothing.

Are you of the opinion that all speed traps are placed in appropriate locations? Yes. There is no such thing as an inappropriate location, but yes, some are better than others. But this relates only to the effectiveness of the implementation - relative effectiveness is no argument against the principal of implementing them.
Can you see any justification for exceeding the speed limit? Guards, ambulances.
Is everyone who is caught speeding being a danger to other road users? The short answer is yes but it needs explaining. They are not necessarily being a danger in every particular instance that they are caught (yes the driver on an empty motorway doing 130 is clearly not a danger to other road users). But the point is that they are showing themselves to be someone who is willing to override the rules of the road with their own judgement. It is this element that makes them a danger to other road users and so it is a good thing if they are caught. Some peoples judgement may be good, others may be poor - so we have national agreed limits - restricting the upper limit to the drivers judgement. Again, imperfect, and not always optimised to be correct on every road - but better than everyone setting their own limits.

Niall1234

Stekelly wrote: »

Is it ok for me to decide what other laws I should and shouldnt obey at my own dicetion? Why is speeding any different. As already said, if theres a speed limit you dont agree with and have valid reasons (obviously better ones han whatever got the limit lowered in the first place) take it to your local TD.

Before we start making laws, maybe the Government should focus on implementing correct speed limits too.

Judge Patwell has been throwing out speeding tickets on the old Cork to Fermoy road with speeds under 100kph as he claims that the NRA does not have the power to reduce the speed limts on roads.

A very interesting predicament which basically says that the speed limit on the road is 100kph yet the road signs show 80kph.

astraboy

AAAAA, Sandwich and his no holds barred approach to speeding and road safety.:rolleyes: FFS, there are loads of places in this country where the speed limit is too low. We don't all have the time to be emailing our TD's about inappropiately low limits, we know nothing would be done about it anyway.Speed cameras are a revenue generation exercise combined with the Government looking like they are doing something. Dangerous driving and plenty of other offenses will now go under the radar as this substitute for real policing becomes more prevelant.

There is no one silver bullet for road safety. Yes, a limited number of speed cameras in low limit residental areas or out side schools is fine. Catching people 10kph over the limit when the dogs on the street know it was'nt dangerous is not an improvement in road safety. Just because the government say its ok to do 100kph and not 110 does not make it prohibitively unsafe and we all know that.

As for the, "if I break the speed limit do you decide what other laws I can break too" argument, its stretching the point. Common sense and proper driver training should allow most people to select a safe speed taking into account conditions and traffic etc, regardless of the posted limit. A safe speed is often above or below the limit. Sort out driver training and roads first before screwing us for 80 euro for 10kph over the limit. The nanny state at its finest, a Scam in so many ways its not funny. What ever happened to allowing people to make certain decisions for ourselves? Sandwich, your comment about the guy doing 130 on the motorway is so far wrong I don't know where to start. Hes automatically a danger to everyone else cause he obeys with may be too low a limit? Your opinion on this matter is so far entrenched I won't even bother arguing with you.

eringobragh

Sandwich wrote: »

Not a troll at all, and annoying when your contribution is dismissed as such rather than accepted as a valid point of view.

Why do you say its a good thing? Because every little contribution to discouraging speeding is a step in the right direction. Yes it will be implemented imperfectly. Some people will be annoyed that they are placed in locations where to exceed the stated limit is still safe. But an imperfect implementation which hase some positive effect is better than none at all . Not whats is normal in this country I know - we talk for ever about finding a solution that suits everybody - and end up doing nothing.

Are you of the opinion that all speed traps are placed in appropriate locations? Yes. There is no such thing as an inappropriate location, but yes, some are better than others. But this relates only to the effectiveness of the implementation - relative effectiveness is no argument against the principal of implementing them.
Can you see any justification for exceeding the speed limit? Guards, ambulances.
Is everyone who is caught speeding being a danger to other road users? The short answer is yes but it needs explaining. They are not necessarily being a danger in every particular instance that they are caught (yes the driver on an empty motorway doing 130 is clearly not a danger to other road users). But the point is that they are showing themselves to be someone who is willing to override the rules of the road with their own judgement. It is this element that makes them a danger to other road users and so it is a good thing if they are caught. Some peoples judgement may be good, others may be poor - so we have national agreed limits - restricting the upper limit to the drivers judgement. Again, imperfect, and not always optimised to be correct on every road - but better than everyone setting their own limits.

For the Love of god.. Get Gay Byrnes D**k out of your backside.

astraboy

eringobragh wrote: »

For the Love of god.. Get Gay Byrnes D**k out of your backside.

Ha Ha! Funny cos its true!

Though I'm sure he'll report you for abuse or something now.:rolleyes:

eringobragh

astraboy wrote: »

Ha Ha! Funny cos its true!

Though I'm sure he'll report you for abuse or something now.:rolleyes:

I could have meant Duck for all you know