New speed trap M50 northbound

cyclopath2001

faigs wrote: »

I have always wondered, if fixed speed cameras are meant to be a deterrent from speeding, why aren't they covered in luminous stripes like they are in the UK?

If they were obvious, there was more of them, and they were highlighted, the motorist would not be speeding past them, making the roads safer for all of us.

Err, there are large road signs with the speed limit in black print on a white background in a red circle, are these not obvious enough?

Plus, it's in the RoTR that 120kph is the highest allowed speed anywhere in the country. Is this not obvious enough?

The whole idea of speed cameras is to catch people who think they can break the law and get away with it.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The whole idea of speed cameras is to catch people who think they can break the law and get away with it.

That's not what the RSA says:

The implementation of the Safety Camera Network will require a major public awareness campaign to
make all road users aware of the role of the cameras in enhancing their safety by reducing the number of
collisions, deaths and serious injuries across the road network.

If a camera is hidden how can it achieve it's objective which is to prevent collisions?

Wibbler

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

That's not what the RSA says:
If a camera is hidden how can it achieve it's objective which is to prevent collisions?

I think the rationale is obvious. If you don't know where the cameras are, but decide to speed, then you never know when you are going to get caught. The hope is that a limited number of cameras will influence driver behaviour over a greater stretch of road than the would otherwise do if they were plainly visible.

Atomic Pineapple

Wibbler wrote: »

I think the rationale is obvious. If you don't know where the cameras are, but decide to speed, then you never know when you are going to get caught. The hope is that a limited number of cameras will influence driver behaviour over a greater stretch of road than the would otherwise do if they were plainly visible.

That would only work if the cameras moved around as most people travel a daily route so would simply remember where the camera's were and slow down for them.

The locations of speed camera's is also available on the Garda website so anyone can know before leaving their house where they are.

Speed cameras may objective is to keep the public happy that something is being done when its really not, money needs to be spent on much more important things that aren't just a visual comfort for the public.

I.S.T.

Wibbler wrote: »

I think the rationale is obvious. If you don't know where the cameras are, but decide to speed, then you never know when you are going to get caught. The hope is that a limited number of cameras will influence driver behaviour over a greater stretch of road than the would otherwise do if they were plainly visible.

I disagree. If you have a location with high crashes (e.g. one of our "accident black spots", or outside a school) and you want to reduce them, you place a camera, paint it in high visibility colours and make as many people as possible know about it. The result is people reduce speed and take more care at that location. This approach has a real and measurable effect on road collisions rather than what you suggest.

On an aside the other problem with covert speed cameras is that it is impossible to measure the effect they are having on road safety. We have had a dramatic imrpovement in our safety record in the last couple of years. No doubt if the speed camera network had been rolled out on schedule three years ago, operating in a covert manner, we would have Gay Byrne on radio every day giving credit to it for the improvement in safety.

If the state want to go down the speed camera route then the results have to be measurable if the people are to be confident that the prime focus is saving lives.

I.S.T.

draffodx wrote: »

The locations of speed camera's is also available on the Garda website so anyone can know before leaving their house where they are.

The Garda web site just has a list of collision prone zones where they say speed cameras will operate. However this is not what happens in practise. Right now we have fixed cameras being installed on the M50 in areas which are not on this list on the Garda site.

faigs

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Err, there are large road signs with the speed limit in black print on a white background in a red circle, are these not obvious enough?

Plus, it's in the RoTR that 120kph is the highest allowed speed anywhere in the country. Is this not obvious enough?

Err...yes of course its obvious. The rules of the road are obvious and anyone in control of a vehicle on the road should be familiar with them, but unfortunately people ignore these rules sometimes and break the speed limits!

If there was a proper network of cameras and they were obvious to motorists on unfamiliar roads, they would not speed in that 'dangerous' area, which is why the traps have been set up there in the first place no? But of course revenue generation would be down, so that won't happen in this country. Keep them hidden and fool the motorist!

Qualitymark

But surely country roads (for instance in Donegal) should have speed cameras if anywhere has? The aim is to stop tragic crashes caused by speeding, yes?

Del2005

Qualitymark wrote: »

But surely country roads (for instance in Donegal) should have speed cameras if anywhere has? The aim is to stop tragic crashes caused by speeding, yes?

That's the whole point of this thread. While most posters here agree in principle with speed cameras, the goverment by their placing of said cameras are showing what a sham they reall are. If they placed them on dangerous roads, outside schools etc and made them highly visible then they would be accepted as trying to improve road safety. Instead they have placed them, covertly, on high quality multi lane roads. Exceeding the limit by 10km or 20km on the M50 is relativly safe, since driving is always dangerous. Exceeding the limit by 5 km outside a school is highly dangerous, why aren't the cameras going up there?

cyclopath2001

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I disagree. If you have a location with high crashes (e.g. one of our "accident black spots", or outside a school) and you want to reduce them, you place a camera, paint it in high visibility colours and make as many people as possible know about it.

Why not just have a sign saying that there's a school? Wouldn't any responsible driver know what to do?

If we're going to have to accompany every road sign with a camera because people won't comply unless they feel there is a good chance of being caught, we might as well put black boxes in all cars and download the offences every day.

Qualitymark

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Why not just have a sign saying that there's a school? Wouldn't any responsible driver know what to do?

If we're going to have to accompany every road sign with a camera because people won't comply unless they feel there is a good chance of being caught, we might as well put black boxes in all cars and download the offences every day.

Not a bad idea, considering some of the driving you see.

jaffa20

These are the kind of roads speed cameras should be on. Luckily these guys had there own:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64WiHXvczGc

Del2005

jaffa20 wrote: »

These are the kind of roads speed cameras should be on. Luckily these guys had there own:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64WiHXvczGc

They don't appear to be speeding, it looks like they just speeded up the video.

So according to uncle Gaybo and the RSA they have done nothing wrong, but if someone does 110km/h on the M50 they are a danger to other road users.

cyclopath2001

Del2005 wrote: »

So according to uncle Gaybo and the RSA they have done nothing wrong, but if someone does 110km/h on the M50 they are a danger to other road users.

Link please?

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Link please?

I've checked RSA Road Safety Campaign. Can't find anything about muppet passengers with suicidal tendencies. If you can find something please post it.

BTW I know it's against the law and if they where seen by a Garda they would be done for dangerous driving and several other things. But since this is a thread about speed cameras, nothing would have happened to them even if there was a speed camera on the roads they where driving.

maddness

A fixed camera in an area of a road that is not obvious ( after a bend in this case) does not cause people to slow down unless they have prior knowledge that the camera is there. In other words a driver getting a fine and points in the post a week later does not slow him/her down on the road while he is speeding.
When a speeding driver sees a garda car on a road the first reaction is to slow down, in other words this is slowing the driver down straight away.
Speed cameras generate revenue for the government and have as many negative effects on driving habits ( sharp breaking etc) as positive.
If our government was serious about road safety they need to start by some pretty serious driver education and having a much wider garda presence on our roads.

cyclopath2001

Del2005 wrote: »

I've checked RSA Road Safety Campaign.

Where exactly do the RSA say

Del2005 wrote: »

"if someone does 110km/h on the M50 they are a danger to other road users"?

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Where exactly do the RSA say

Now you are being a troll.
But I'll keep feeding you.

Which is the more dangerous? 110km/h on the M50 or what they where doing?

A speed camera is a stupid blunt instrument that only catches one type of dangerous driving. By placing it on one of the safest roads in the country the government and their agencies prove that they aren't out to safe lives but to make money.

If they really wanted to save lives, they would pay for proper enforcement of all traffic laws by a well equipped Gardaí.

Can you explain how deaths on our roads have gone down over the last number of years when all the fixed speed cameras have been removed?

Absurdum

putting a speed camera on it implies that going over the posted limit is dangerous :rolleyes:

Del2005

Absurdum wrote: »

putting a speed camera on it implies that going over the posted limit is dangerous :rolleyes:

So why are there no speed cameras outside schools?

bigbadbear

vvvvvvvvvvvvrroooooommmmmm.

Thats the sound of me getting home early as soon as i get past the speed camera!:pac: I'm a very good and safe driver but when it comes to the M50 there is not a hope in hell of me sticking to the ridiculous speed limit.

I feel sorry for the poor lads in Donegal. There is a culture of bad and mindless driving in certain parts of the country and it is sad but doing 120kmh+ on a motorway is in no way dangerous. Not even a little bit.

It's about time people realised that speed cameras are doing NOTHING to save lives.

EDIT: Those cameras on the M50 wont be active for a little bit yet.

cyclopath2001

Del2005 wrote: »

Now you are being a troll.
But I'll keep feeding you.

Which is the more dangerous? 110km/h on the M50 or what they where doing?

A figure of 110kph does not appear in that document. It does, rather logically and sensibly point out that the speed of a vehicle will have a direct effect on the outcome, if there is a collision.

Let's stick with facts - you attributed a statement to the RSA, which they did not, in fact make.

To answer your question, can you say exactly what you mean by 'what they where doing'?

Given that 120kph is the maximum limit on a motorway, if driving conditions are ideal, a speed of 110kph does not seem low.

Del2005 wrote: »

A speed camera is a stupid blunt instrument that only catches one type of dangerous driving.

This is a good start. But we still need to deal with the huge number of other safety offences being committed daily by people who claim to be 'safe' drivers - illegal parking, failing to stop on amber, illegal overtaking, handphone use, and innappropriate speed.

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Given that 120kph is the maximum limit on a motorway, if driving conditions are ideal, a speed of 110kph does not seem low.

The posted speed limit on that section of the M50 is 100km, so by your own admission 110km is slow. At last we finally agree:)

cyclopath2001

Del2005 wrote: »

The posted speed limit on that section of the M50 is 100km, so by your own admission 110km is slow. At last we finally agree:)

In that case, a speed of 110kph would be illegal. I'm sure there was a good reason for the limit being set at 100kph, so therefore 110kph would not just be illegal but also unsafe.

From what I saw today on the M1, there are a significant minority of drivers who decide their own speed limits. Hopefully, cameras and accumulated points will catch up with them.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

In that case, a speed of 110kph would be illegal. I'm sure there was a good reason for the limit being set at 100kph, so therefore 110kph would not just be illegal but also unsafe.

As I asked someone else with your ridiculous idea that speed limits are actually chosen for any scientific basis, what magical thing happened to a few hundred kilometres of dual carraigeway which had its speed limit raised by 20km/h last year? How did they suddently cease to be unsafe at 101km/h and become unsafe only at 121km/h overnight?

Ditto the entire motorway network gaining 7km/h overnight in 2005.


Speed limits in Ireland rarely have *any* connection to the safe speed of the road. They are either too high (most national secondaries, many R roads) or well below the design speed (nearly the entire motorway network). Slavishly assuming there is any sense to speed limits is far more dangerous than not obeying them.

vincenzolorenzo

bigbadbear wrote: »

vvvvvvvvvvvvrroooooommmmmm.

Thats the sound of me getting home early as soon as i get past the speed camera!:pac: I'm a very good and safe driver but when it comes to the M50 there is not a hope in hell of me sticking to the ridiculous speed limit.

I feel sorry for the poor lads in Donegal. There is a culture of bad and mindless driving in certain parts of the country and it is sad but doing 120kmh+ on a motorway is in no way dangerous. Not even a little bit.

It's about time people realised that speed cameras are doing NOTHING to save lives.

EDIT: Those cameras on the M50 wont be active for a little bit yet.

Here we go, this should be good!

Absurdum

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Hopefully, cameras and accumulated points will catch up with them.

Why?

Del2005

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

In that case, a speed of 110kph would be illegal. I'm sure there was a good reason for the limit being set at 100kph, so therefore 110kph would not just be illegal but also unsafe.

Speed limits are picked for good reason:eek:

Why was the limit from Tallaght to Finglus dropped from 120km/h when it was a 2 lane motorway with traffic regularly stopped on the main carriageway due tail backs from the traffic lights at the N7, N4, N3, N2 and a stop for a toll bridge to 100km/h now it's a 3/4 lane motorway with free flow junctions and traffic rarely stopped on the main carriageway?

What has made it more dangerous that it requires a 20km/h limit reduction?

I see you also choose to ignore MYOB's question about how hundreds of km of road can suddenly increase from 100km/h to 120km/h with only the addition of a blue sign or how thousands of km of road can be reduced from 100km/h to 80km/h with the removal of an N.

From what I saw today on the M1, there are a significant minority of drivers who decide their own speed limits. Hopefully, cameras and accumulated points will catch up with them

How will getting a letter in the post 3 weeks later have any affect on someone who rarely drives the road? Surely if the road was that dangerous that it warranted speed cameras they should be obvious so that motorists slow down for the dangerous part.

If speed cameras are really meant to improve road safety, every fine they send out means that they have failed.

Eric Cartman

This country has a decent motorway network thats illuminated at the correct points and which has a high level of visibility as its quite flat, the n4 should be 100km/h especially between the m50 and leixlip , none of this 80km/h sh*te that does nobody any good, the entire strech of the m1 and the m50 are both very safe and i dont think theres any more danger in doing 140 or 160 km/h over 100/120 km/h , backroads with 80 km speed limits are a menace and should be re-evaluated to 60 ,

speed cameras should also be banned on these roads, theres no promoting safety with a gatso van getting the person doing 130km/h who suddenly brakes in the right hand lane when they spot the van, speed cameras need to be deployed on country roads, over steep hills where visibility is reduced and other such areas , not just sitting as cash cows on the n4 catching people doing 90 who pose less of a danger than the old fogies doing 40 on the m50

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Why not just have a sign saying that there's a school? Wouldn't any responsible driver know what to do?

If we're going to have to accompany every road sign with a camera because people won't comply unless they feel there is a good chance of being caught, we might as well put black boxes in all cars and download the offences every day.

Is this a serious question?