Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

New speed trap M50 northbound

Options
1356789

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    jaffa20
    Registered Users Posts: 4,523 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    ReefBreak wrote: »
    Let me get this straight. Are you motoring people against:
    (a) speedtraps or
    (b) speedtraps on allegedly "safer" roads (M50, M7, etc).

    But you should know that there is a very easy way to avoid getting caught by the speed cameras: DON'T SPEED.

    Personally, I have no sympathy for anyone that gets caught speeding on our roads. You were speeding, you got caught, slow down.

    There are laws against breaking red lights, or driving on the wrong side of the road - which everyone adheres to. So why should there be a culture of breaking the speeding law? And no offence, but given what occurred in Donegal on Sunday night, anyone that disagrees with this is an idiot.

    (b) speedtraps on allegedly "safer" roads (M50, M7, etc).

    Not many people stick to 100kph on the m50. You shouldn't have to. It's money making ploy.

    What happened in donegal is totally irrelevant to speed cameras on a motorway in dublin. Besides, that appears to have been due to an overloaded car and the speed limit is set at 80kph on that bendy little road with potholes and accidents spots lining it. In fact, most of the shoite back roads in ireland are 80kph and here we have a 3 lane motorway set at 20kph. Ridiculous.


  • Options
    #63
    ReefBreak
    Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    ...and about to go up to between 50 and 60 once the private operators come in later this year.
    I can 100% predict with absolute 100% certainty that this will result in the level of road deaths being reduced. Bring it on.


  • Options
    #64
    ReefBreak
    Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    SGKM wrote: »
    You seem to believe whatever nonsensical tripe that Gay Byrne spouts out of him. Do you work for the RSA?

    Like most Irish people I would consider myself too lazy to get out and protest against political decisions but if this country fails to learn from the UK's (openly admitted!!) mistakes and does become plagued with these revenue generators, I would give serious thought to getting up off my arse and attempting to do something about it.
    Sorry to break this to you, but the UK has one of the lowest road-death rates in the world.


  • Options
    #65
    ReefBreak
    Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    What happened in donegal is totally irrelevant to speed cameras on a motorway in dublin. Besides, that appears to have been due to an overloaded car and the speed limit is set at 80kph on that bendy little road with potholes and accidents spots lining it. In fact, most of the shoite back roads in ireland are 80khp and here we have a 3 lane motorway set at 20kph. Ridiculous.
    Actually, it is relevant to this thread, because some of the people on this thread appear to think that the new cameras coming in are a money-making ploy. In other words, they are using this argument simply as an excuse to speed. The cameras are a life-saving ploy - and the only real way to get people to slow down is to hit them in the pockets. It works everywhere else in the world, and it'll work in Ireland.


  • Options
    #66
    jaffa20
    Registered Users Posts: 4,523 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    ReefBreak wrote: »
    Actually, it is relevant to this thread, because some of the people on this thread appear to think that the new cameras coming in are a money-making ploy. In other words, they are using this argument simply as an excuse to speed. The cameras are a life-saving ploy - and the only real way to get people to slow down is to hit them in the pockets. It works everywhere else in the world, and it'll work in Ireland.

    How many lives have been lost on the m50 then to justify it if these speed cameras are a life saving ploy?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ReefBreak
    Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    How many lives have been lost on the m50 then to justify it if these speed cameras are a life saving ploy?
    Well for a start, this person might still be alive. And remember, it's not just deaths that get prevented - we hear of crashes on the M50 all the time.

    I have no problem with with obeying a simple law on a motorway if it means that less people are getting injured or killed.

    I have no problem spending an extra 5 minutes (the amount of time you save driving at 60 rather than 70mph for half an hour on the M50) getting from A to B if it means that less people are getting injured or killed.

    But then again, I didn't realise people had to die or get maimed before we put up preventative measures.


  • Options
    #68
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    jock101 wrote: »
    Eh no, its my opinion and a public forum, deal with it!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Just a thought Jock, you're entitled to your opinion, but if you softened your posting style a little you may be able to get your point across without getting people's backs up. You're more likely to get a respectful and thorough response to your points, rather than the assumption/accusation that you're a troll.


  • Options
    #69
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    ReefBreak wrote: »
    Well for a start, this person might still be alive. And remember, it's not just deaths that get prevented - we hear of crashes on the M50 all the time.

    From the article you linked to:
    A man who was involved in a fatal road collision has been jailed for four months after admitting charges of dangerous driving and driving without insurance...


    ...The collission happened on 28 December 2004 after he drove his car dangerously on the M50 and crossed over into oncoming traffic...

    ...there was also an engineers report suggesting a problem with the brakes of his car...

    ...The court had also previously heard there had not been a crash barrier at that section of motorway.

    Which, if any, of these issues would a speed camera have prevented?


  • Options
    #70
    ReefBreak
    Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    -Chris- wrote: »
    From the article you linked to:
    Which, if any, of these issues would a speed camera have prevented?

    Oh let's see, the bit where it says:
    he drove his car dangerously on the M50
    The guy was speeding, he lost control of his car, and from this point the accident occurred.


  • Options
    #71
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    ReefBreak wrote: »
    The guy was speeding, he lost control of his car, and from this point the accident occurred.

    Does it say he was speeding anywhere in that article?

    Nope, it actually says:
    The Director of Public Prosecutions had directed Mr. Desjatnikovs, who is 30-years-old, to face a simple charge of dangerous driving after an engineers report suggested a difficulty with the brakes of his car.

    You can drive dangerously without ever exceeding the speed limit, as seems to be the case in this instance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    mondeo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,670 ✭✭✭mondeo


    Nice bit of info here, Will record the locations on the satnav tommorow as I pass to get their exact locations.


  • Options
    #73
    ReefBreak
    Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭ReefBreak


    -Chris- wrote: »
    Does it say he was speeding anywhere in that article?

    Nope, it actually says:

    You can drive dangerously without ever exceeding the speed limit, as seems to be the case in this instance.
    He almost certainly was speeding. Sorry, but a car does not fly "through the air" at 60mph. A camera might well have caused that piece-of-sh*t speeding driver to have slowed down.

    As an aside, he got 4 months in prison. Sickening - I'd have given him 10 years, at least.


  • Options
    #74
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    ReefBreak wrote: »
    He almost certainly was speeding. Sorry, but a car does not fly "through the air" at 60mph.

    Almost certainly? I wonder why the courts didn't address that.

    And why wouldn't a car fly through the air at 60MPH if it meets the right obstacle?

    ReefBreak wrote: »
    A camera might well have caused that piece-of-sh*t speeding driver to have slowed down.

    You're talking about a driver who was happy to drive an unroadworthy car without insurance, thereby showing a flagrant disregard for the law. A fixed speed camera probably doesn't even show up on your radar when you're operating at that level.


    And to add, I fully recognise that this accident was a horrible tragedy and that the driver's actions were completely reprehensible.


  • Options
    #75
    Dubluc
    Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭Dubluc


    ReefBreak wrote: »
    This is exactly an example of the ignorant comments that you hear from speed-merchants. That camera was a perfect example of good speed-camera placement. It was placed at a point where people were at the end of a 70mph motorway, with a set of traffic lights further up the road. It slowed people down as they approached these lights from the motorway - lives were saved and injuries were prevented.

    As someone said to me before: "Yes, I don't understand the point of that camera - there are never any crashes at that section of road".
    Yes - that's exactly correct...

    I couldn't agree more! If you don't want to get caught speeding don't speed. It's simple.

    However there are many roads, where a re-assessment of the speed limit would be in order. Many R roads are former N roads and were arbitarialy and automatically reduced to 80km limits. Many more R roads should not have 80km limits because that is way too fast to drive on them (the fact that some morons don't think of this is somewhat scary).

    To those who feel that speed limits on a particular road are either too high or too low campaign to have them adjusted. In the meantime please obey them and if you get caught just accept it an amend your behaviour in future!


  • Options
    #76
    Heroditas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,454 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    -Chris- wrote: »
    You're talking about a driver who was happy to drive an unroadworthy car without insurance, thereby showing a flagrant disregard for the law. A fixed speed camera probably doesn't even show up on your radar when you're operating at that level.



    Couldn't have put it better myself.


  • Options
    #77
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Dubluc wrote: »
    In the meantime please obey them and if you get caught just accept it an amend your behaviour in future!

    If and when I am caught for exceeding the speed limit, I'll accept my fine and points like a man. Unfortunately the only amendment these fixed cameras will make to my driving is to cause me to slow down for these specific pieces of road.


  • Options
    #78
    SGKM
    Registered Users Posts: 207 ✭✭SGKM


    ReefBreak wrote: »
    Sorry to break this to you, but the UK has one of the lowest road-death rates in the world.

    And I don't disagree with you there, that's a fact but it wasn't to do with speed cameras, although they can plan a part if implemented correctly in say an accident black spot. In the UK they have a far better and safer road network, better driver education such as in school, better rural public transport systems so less drink driving. Why do you think the UK government is now cutting funding for them????

    Think about how speed cameras are implemented in the UK - they're placed before accident blackspots painted bright orange so people see them and slow down and take the dangerous road safely and in the UK you can legally have speed camera detectors becasue it's about slowing down on more dangerous roads... fair enough. Now, how are speed traps implemented here? There's a gaurd hiding behind a bus stop on a 2 lane national primary road where the speed limit is 60km/h... and roads like this feature all over the gaurd's "speed enforcement zones" which is a sickening disgrace! Would you ever see a gaurd on a narrow winding country road where you'd struggle to do 60km/k with a 100km/h speed limit? No and that's the problem and those are the roads where the road deaths are orruring, not the M50. Now, can you see the problem there?

    What casues traffic accidents and road deaths in this country? poor road conditions? dangerous over taking? drink driving? sh1tty cars/tyres? people going to fast (but under the speed limit) for the road conditions? not paying sufficient attention, perhaps texting while driving? speed limits being far too high on poor country roads?

    ...And how can we solve this? Ah yes, speed cameras and why? Because it's the cheapest way of attempting to do this and if they're "strategically" placed they'll generate income for more "He drives, She dies" RSA campaigns and Eirgrid advertising.

    In a year or two you'll see the error in your argument when these stealth tax cameras have done literally nothing for road safety in this country.


  • Options
    #79
    Dubluc
    Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭Dubluc


    -Chris- wrote: »
    If and when I am caught for exceeding the speed limit, I'll accept my fine and points like a man. Unfortunately the only amendment these fixed cameras will make to my driving is to cause me to slow down for these specific pieces of road.

    Why won't you slow down? Years of research has shown that the slower you are driving when the unexpected happens the easier it is to stop and the less likely you will kill or seriously injure anyone.

    You might like to watch this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9fms5He5bM

    Perhaps you are exempt the laws of physics?


  • Options
    #80
    SGKM
    Registered Users Posts: 207 ✭✭SGKM


    Dartz wrote: »
    I think you missed the intent of my post, which was a picture of a fishing boat trolling....

    Trust me, talking to this one.... it'll be like talking to a brick wall that's sneakily laughing at you for it. It's not worth the time.

    Yeah, sorry I missed that alright... it was late!

    I know I was getting quite wound up by him but the thought of people with that level of ignorance towards reality and lack of knowledge about fact holding any kind of position where they make decisions on our road safety scares the bejaysus out of me!!


  • Options
    #81
    kasper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,437 ✭✭✭kasper


    Dubluc wrote: »
    Why won't you slow down? Years of research has shown that the slower you are driving when the unexpected happens the easier it is to stop and the less likely you will kill or seriously injure anyone.

    You might like to watch this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9fms5He5bM

    Perhaps you are exempt the laws of physics?
    by your reasoning the speed limit across the whole country should be 30kph or maybe thats too fast


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    CosmicJay
    Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭CosmicJay


    Dubluc wrote: »
    Why won't you slow down? Years of research has shown that the slower you are driving when the unexpected happens the easier it is to stop and the less likely you will kill or seriously injure anyone.

    You might like to watch this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9fms5He5bM

    Perhaps you are exempt the laws of physics?

    Clicky

    Have a read of the third paragraph.

    In relation to the TAC ads speeding in a built up area like that is suicidal, but the point people are trying to make is that speed cameras are not in these areas. They are at spots which will make the best revenue.

    I would have no problems with speed cameras in areas by schools and built up areas where cars are parked either side, but there arent any in this country, Their all on the m50. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #83
    Dubluc
    Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭Dubluc


    kasper wrote: »
    by your reasoning the speed limit across the whole country should be 30kph or maybe thats too fast

    How do you come to that conclusion?

    For the record in case you miss my point.

    If the road conditions and safety allows and the limit is:

    120km/h you can drive up to that speed;
    100km/h you can drive up to that speed;
    80km/h you can drive up to that speed;
    60km/h you can drive up to that speed;
    50km/h you can drive up to that speed;
    30km/h you can drive up to that speed;

    Unless the class of vehicle you are driving is not allowed past a slower speed, eg HGVs usually have 80km limit except on dual carriageways and m/ways where they can go at 100km.

    If you exceed these limits and you get caught you were speeding.

    Just because you might be in a hurry and don't normally speed won't make a whit of difference to Newton's laws of motion when you apply the brakes and you are driving too fast.

    Remember better to arrive late than dead on time!


  • Options
    #84
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Dubluc wrote: »
    Why won't you slow down? Years of research has shown that the slower you are driving when the unexpected happens the easier it is to stop and the less likely you will kill or seriously injure anyone.

    But it's not about speed, but inappropriate speed.

    If I do 120 on the M50 instead of 100, it's unlikely to hurt anyone (although not impossible).
    If I do 60 in a 50 and impact a pedestrian, then we'll be in a situation that is relevant to your link below.
    If I do exactly 79 on a back road that has an 80 limit, in the dark, in the rain, in a car with no ABS and one dodgy headlamp, then there's the potential for massive carnage, but I'll be driving within the speed limit.

    Your fixed camera on the M50 will not adequately address any of these hypotheticals.

    Dubluc wrote: »
    You might like to watch this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9fms5He5bM

    Perhaps you are exempt the laws of physics?

    I am fully aware of the laws of physics, but again I don't believe this link or your general point is fully relevant to a fixed speed camera on a straight, clear stretch of the M50.

    At the very least these cameras should be on the exit ramps of the M50 where the speed limit drops, so that people don't join the N4, N7 etc. at 120Kmph.
    That discrepancy in speed between the driver leaving the M50 and the driver already on the N-road (obeying the limit and doing 60) is far more likely to cause an accident than someone doing 120 instead of 100 on the M50 proper.


  • Options
    #85
    rubberdiddies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 717 ✭✭✭rubberdiddies


    -Chris- wrote: »
    If and when I am caught for exceeding the speed limit, I'll accept my fine and points like a man. Unfortunately the only amendment these fixed cameras will make to my driving is to cause me to slow down for these specific pieces of road.

    So you're happy to say that you break the law regularly by driving over the speed limit?

    What part of 'illegal' is hard to understand for all the speeders?


  • Options
    #86
    Dubluc
    Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭Dubluc


    CosmicJay wrote: »
    Clicky

    Have a read of the third paragraph.

    In relation to the TAC ads speeding in a built up area like that is suicidal, but the point people are trying to make is that speed cameras are not in these areas. They are at spots which will make the best revenue.

    I would have no problems with speed cameras in areas by schools and built up areas where cars are parked either side, but there arent any in this country, Their all on the m50. :rolleyes:

    Tis an interesting finding. However it seems to suggest by my reading that people are familiar with the road.

    Two things on that:
    1. Posted limits will help people (assuming the right limit is set, and admittedly that isn't always the case as I've acknowledged earlier) who are not local to an area to anticipate the level of danger and adjust their speed accordingly.

    2. A disturbing number of people killed on the roads in this country are killed within a relatively short distance of their home.


  • Options
    #87
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,129 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ReefBreak wrote: »
    He almost certainly was speeding. Sorry, but a car does not fly "through the air" at 60mph. A camera might well have caused that piece-of-sh*t speeding driver to have slowed down.

    As an aside, he got 4 months in prison. Sickening - I'd have given him 10 years, at least.

    There is nothing in the article to suggest your "almost certainly", and a car can quite easily "fly through the air" at 100km/h should it have hit something to cause it to. So stop claiming he was speeding until such point as you can find some proof.

    Also the accident in question was a crossover which is now close to impossible with the new safety barries on the M50.

    Believing that speed is the cause of all accidents is one of the worst things possible for road safety. Defective vehicles, poorly designed roads, poorly maintained roads, drink and drugs have all caused far more road deaths than doing 20-40km/h over the limit on a motorway ever have - or will.


  • Options
    #88
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Dubluc wrote: »
    If the road conditions and safety allows and the limit is:

    This bit is key, and the most important part of your post IMO, and it can't be catered for by a fixed camera.

    If you want driver discipline to take into account road conditions and other safety factors you need to increase driver training and you need to properly resource the Garda Traffic Corp so that they can use their discretion and experience to account for the conditions.

    If you want to use a blunt instrument like a gatso camera and make a difference to the safety of all road users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorists), then you need to make a more intelligent choice than on the main carriageway of the country's busiest (and taking into account traffic volume, probably the country's slowest) motorway.


  • Options
    #89
    CosmicJay
    Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭CosmicJay


    Dubluc wrote: »
    Tis an interesting finding. However it seems to suggest by my reading that people are familiar with the road.

    Two things on that:
    1. Posted limits will help people (assuming the right limit is set, and admittedly that isn't always the case as I've acknowledged earlier) who are not local to an area to anticipate the level of danger and adjust their speed accordingly.

    2. A disturbing number of people killed on the roads in this country are killed within a relatively short distance of their home.

    Your second point is true, Although mainly that is due down to the fact you are more likey to crash when your with 2km of coming home as all your focus and attention is on getting through the front door and relaxing.

    Posting a suggested speed would be fine, anyone who is really dangerous isnt going to be swayed by a speed limit or a speed camera.

    The only gripe I have with speed cameras is that they are in the most useless areas. On the m50? with 3 deaths in the last 3 years. Im sure they would be much more use somewhere else, plus some of the speed limits in this country seem to be a bit looney.


  • Options
    #90
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,129 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ReefBreak wrote: »
    This is exactly an example of the ignorant comments that you hear from speed-merchants. That camera was a perfect example of good speed-camera placement. It was placed at a point where people were at the end of a 70mph motorway, with a set of traffic lights further up the road. It slowed people down as they approached these lights from the motorway - lives were saved and injuries were prevented.

    As someone said to me before: "Yes, I don't understand the point of that camera - there are never any crashes at that section of road".
    Yes - that's exactly correct...

    The camera has been gone for over two years, including a time period when there was a complete arseways 'roundabout' laid out around a massive pit in the ground instead of the traffic lights (which were quite some distance away, well signed, and had been perfectly safe when the speed limit on that road was 100km/h and there was no camera)

    There hasn't been any accidents since it was removed, and nothing to suggest the camera saved any lives or prevented any injuries beforehand.

    I've driven that road to school/work almost daily since I was 17 and have lived in the area for many years before the GATSO was erected and still after its removed and I can't remember one fatal or injurious crash along there caused by speed.

    The camera was a revenue generation facility and nothing more, the worst of any in the country for such at the time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    -Chris-
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    rubberdiddies wrote: »
    So you're happy to say that you break the law regularly by driving over the speed limit?

    Absolutely, I have no issue in saying that, in certain conditions where I feel it is safe enough to do so, taking all relevant factors of safety into account, I am happy to break the law by driving over the speed limit.

    rubberdiddies wrote: »
    What part of 'illegal' is hard to understand for all the speeders?

    I fully understand it's illegal, and as before, if I'm caught I'll take my medicine.


Advertisement