Speed camera van on the quay opposite Capel St bridge

Philip42

Hi guys..this may be well known but in case anyone doesn't, I got flashed by a speed camerain a parked white wan opposite CApel St bridge the other night..I had only crossed the bridge and went around the corner when I saw it go off..can't have been doing more than 40k at the time and i know it's 30k along there before anyone says it..just thought I might save someone else the hassle and the penalty points!

sdanseo

Cheers for that I'm on the quays reguarly...Jesus they really are scraping the barrel for funds now. Why not put camera on a stretch of road that needs them.

That said, some people do go very fast down the quays but 50km/h is not unreasonable, especially at night.

frank gooding

Thats a disgrace it is nearly impossible to go 30kph down the quays.

OP should get on to the radio shows.

How is this still in force?

And before the high horse brigade get on this its the limit and though/ this is an unfair money making racket limit.

cyclopath2001

sdonn wrote: »

That said, some people do go very fast down the quays but 50km/h is not unreasonable, especially at night.

When visibility is less and pedestrians, possibly with a glass or two of wine in them might be trying to cross?

Heroditas

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

When visibility is less and pedestrians, possibly with a glass or two of wine in them might be trying to cross?

Shouldn't they cross at designated pedestrian crossings or are you advocating jay-walking?

sdanseo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

When visibility is less and pedestrians, possibly with a glass or two of wine in them might be trying to cross?

I can see peds ahead at 50km/h, and stop quite happily in about 50 metres at that speed. The quays also have 2-3 lanes the whole length so peds can be steered round.

I tried to go exactly 30km/h in my car the other night in town, I had to drop to 2nd gear and the engine didn't sound all too healthy. There are risks in every walk of life, but this is PC gone stir fúcking crazy. STUPID idea especially when there's not a sinner on the road, be it in a car or falling around the pavement.

What's needed is a few cops to actually enforce jaywalking rules - example, a randomer launched himself into the road in front of me a few nights ago, legging it across the road without even bothering to look. I let him have it with lights+horn, and what do I get? Abuse for not killing the ****. I wish I could have mown him down tbh.

The scary thing? If I'd hit him, I would of course be responsible.

Senseless.

paddyland

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

When visibility is less and pedestrians, possibly with a glass or two of wine in them might be trying to cross?

How many cyclists slow down when there are pedestrians on the road...?

BostonB

Heroditas wrote: »

Shouldn't they cross at designated pedestrian crossings or are you advocating jay-walking?

AFAIK theres no such thing as Jay Walking in Ireland.

BostonB

sdonn wrote: »

I....I tried to go exactly 30km/h in my car the other night in town, I had to drop to 2nd gear and the engine didn't sound all too healthy.....

Inappropriate speed limits are one thing. But you've a different problem. So I'm curious, if you (or your car) can't drive at 30km/h how do you drive in traffic moving at 30km/h? or drive around a car park.

Turpentine

BostonB wrote: »

Inappropriate speed limits are one thing. But you've a different problem. So I'm curious, if you (or your car) can't drive at 30km/h how do you drive in traffic moving at 30km/h? or drive around a car park.

I think the point s/he's trying to make is that 30km/h is too fast for 2nd gear and too slow for 3rd. It's something that I find as well: you have to push too hard in 2nd and if you move up to 3rd it's a chore to keep the car below 30. It's just an awkward limit if you have to drive it for an extended time i.e. at night when the traffic is not stop-start.

Heroditas

BostonB wrote: »

AFAIK theres no such thing as Jay Walking in Ireland.

What do you suggest I call people who walk out in front of cars?

Eric Cartman

i got caught by it too last sunday , i was doing 40 on the clock which is 37-38 actual

BostonB

Heroditas wrote: »

What do you suggest I call people who walk out in front of cars?

Anything you like. But its not jay walking as we don't have that law. So they can cross anywhere they like, more or less.

BostonB

Turpentine wrote: »

I think the point s/he's trying to make is that 30km/h is too fast for 2nd gear and too slow for 3rd. It's something that I find as well: you have to push too hard in 2nd and if you move up to 3rd it's a chore to keep the car below 30. It's just an awkward limit if you have to drive it for an extended time i.e. at night when the traffic is not stop-start.

It might be a chore, but the car can do it. The problem isn't the car.

Get cruise control if you are unable to drive at a specific speed.

Jonnykitedude

cruise control wont work in most cars at 30km/h

BostonB

Jonnykitedude wrote: »

cruise control wont work in most cars at 30km/h

Assuming you have a problem driving at a specific speed. Buy a car that it does work in then. A quick google suggests that most cruise control system start at 30 km/h. Or maybe cycle.

Heroditas

BostonB wrote: »

Anything you like. But its not jay walking as we don't have that law. So they can cross anywhere they like, more or less.

Fine, I'll continue to call it jaywalking, seeing that the term refers to:

Jaywalking is an informal term commonly used in North America to refer to illegal or reckless pedestrian crossing of a roadway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking

Philip42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i got caught by it too last sunday , i was doing 40 on the clock which is 37-38 actual

Cheers Eric..it really is a bull**** limit..nothing but a money spinner for the government..I had only come across the bridge and around the corner to I can't have been going that fast myself..

BostonB

Heroditas wrote: »

Shouldn't they cross at designated pedestrian crossings or are you advocating jay-walking?

Yes but the specific point you made (quoted) was they should only cross at pedestrian crossings and anything else is jay-walking. Thats wrong. Simple as. They can cross anywhere, more or less. So you drive accordingly.

Jonnykitedude

BostonB wrote: »

Assuming you have a problem driving at a specific speed. Buy a car that it does work in then. A quick google suggests that most cruise control system start at 30 km/h. Or maybe cycle.

Never said it didnt work in ALL cars but MOST it wont.

And I can drive fine at the ridiculous 30km/h limit.

Dont take everything you google as gospel.

BostonB

Jonnykitedude wrote: »

Never said it didnt work in ALL cars but MOST it wont.

And I can drive fine at the ridiculous 30km/h limit.

Dont take everything you google as gospel.

You don't need it then. Though tbh its very handy for sticking to speed limits.

Hence why I said "suggests"

djimi

Ridiculous limit tbf. When its busy you cant go more than that speed anyway, and when its not busy its not necessary. 50kmph is sufficient imo; its slow enough that you can stop in time if needs be and its also slow enough that pedestrians can see you coming. If a pedestrian is too drunk/stupid to not be able to avoid a car going that speed then chances are theyre just as likely to walk out in front of a car going 30kmph.

There is equal onus on both drivers and pedestrians with regards safefy when in the city center, and Im very much of the belief that pedestrians should be made to take responsibility for their own actions and drivers should not be crippled just because some morons are too stupid to know how to cross a road safely.

Heroditas

BostonB wrote: »

Yes but the specific point you made (quoted) was they should only cross at pedestrian crossings and anything else is jay-walking. Thats wrong. Simple as. They can cross anywhere, more or less. So you drive accordingly.

So you actually do advocate people recklessly crossing the road.

Stark

Turpentine wrote: »

I think the point s/he's trying to make is that 30km/h is too fast for 2nd gear and too slow for 3rd. It's something that I find as well: you have to push too hard in 2nd and if you move up to 3rd it's a chore to keep the car below 30. It's just an awkward limit if you have to drive it for an extended time i.e. at night when the traffic is not stop-start.

50km/hr is the point where I generally change from 3rd gear to 4th gear in my car so that's just as awkward from a gear change point of view. (Although most people on the quays get round that one by tearing down at 70km/hr+). 30km/hr is a frustrating speed to drive at but that's a driver issue, not a vehicle issue.

Tbh, if they had enforced the 50km/hr limit that was there previously, they would have done a lot for pedestrian safety. Even with the new 30km/hr limit, I still get tailgated and overtaken for driving at 50.

Heroditas wrote:

So you actually do advocate people recklessly crossing the road.

Personally, I have nothing against them turning the city centre into a shared space.

djimi

BostonB wrote: »

It might be a chore, but the car can do it. The problem isn't the car.

Get cruise control if you are unable to drive at a specific speed.

Cruise control should only be used when cruising on an open road and when not in traffic. Suggesting that someone use cruise control when driving down the quays in Dublin in dangerous and irresponsible.

djimi

BostonB wrote: »

Yes but the specific point you made (quoted) was they should only cross at pedestrian crossings and anything else is jay-walking. Thats wrong. Simple as. They can cross anywhere, more or less. So you drive accordingly.

Pedestrians cannot cross wherever they feel like it. They can cross provided that it is safe to do so, but its unreasonable to expect drivers to drive at 10mph on the off chance stupid pedestrians will saunter out in front of your car without looking. Like I said above, the onus of safety is on pedestrians and drivers; drivers should be driving at a speed in which they can react but also pedestrians should be aware enough not to force a driver to take evasive action to avoid them.

Heroditas

Stark wrote: »

Personally, I have nothing against them turning the city centre into a shared space.

You know what, neither do I. I love the idea of a city centre with minimal amounts of traffic. It would be absolutely fantastic and would be marvellous for tourism.

Unfortunately, everything is done half-assed here and instead we have the city centre snarled up with slow moving traffic and poor public transport with ninja pedestrians playing chicken with vehicles.

dahamsta

I have to wonder if road safety advocates can hear themselves. They're as bad as DCC and their ilk when it comes to sanctimony and pedantry. Do ye not realise that acting like you're better than others is not a way to bridge gaps? Do ye know what the word "diplomacy" means?

BostonB

Heroditas wrote: »

So you actually do advocate people recklessly crossing the road.

If you read whats written all I said was you are incorrect in your assumption that people have to cross at crossings, and they are jay walking when they don't. Don't make stuff up. Thx.

BostonB

djimi wrote: »

Cruise control should only be used when cruising on an open road and when not in traffic. Suggesting that someone use cruise control when driving down the quays in Dublin in dangerous and irresponsible.

Why is it dangerous? Soon as you touch the brakes its off.

TheBazman

BostonB wrote: »

Anything you like. But its not jay walking as we don't have that law. So they can cross anywhere they like, more or less.

I know of someone who got a ticking off from a Garda for jaywalking ( or whatever you like to call it) on Gardiner Street

djimi

BostonB wrote: »

Why is it dangerous? Soon as you touch the brakes its off.

Because youre not fully in control of the car when its on cruise contol. Any guide you read about cruise control (certainly anything Ive ever read about it) says that its only supposed to be used while cruising on an open road when not in traffic. Presumably its something to do with the reaction time required to get back on the pedals to shut it off. I know when I had cruise control in my Accord I never felt at all comfortable using it in any kind of traffic as I always felt a lot more in control while driving normally.

BostonB

djimi wrote: »

Pedestrians cannot cross wherever they feel like it. They can cross provided that it is safe to do so, but its unreasonable to expect drivers to drive at 10mph on the off chance stupid pedestrians will saunter out in front of your car without looking. Like I said above, the onus of safety is on pedestrians and drivers; drivers should be driving at a speed in which they can react but also pedestrians should be aware enough not to force a driver to take evasive action to avoid them.

I said they can cross where they like more or less in relation to Jay walking. It wasn't a sweeping statement. I think there is a rule about using a crossing if you are within a certain distance of it. But if you are not, then you can cross wherever. I was correcting that specific point.

I never mentioned anything about people crossing dangerously, like in the middle if a 5 way junction, or a drunk staggering out. Thats a different subject.

BostonB

djimi wrote: »

Because youre not fully in control of the car when its on cruise contol. Any guide you read about cruise control (certainly anything Ive ever read about it) says that its only supposed to be used while cruising on an open road when not in traffic. Presumably its something to do with the reaction time required to get back on the pedals to shut it off. I know when I had cruise control in my Accord I never felt at all comfortable using it in any kind of traffic as I always felt a lot more in control while driving normally.

Do you drive with your foot on the brake? If not whats the difference in reaction time.

BostonB

TheBazman wrote: »

I know of someone who got a ticking off from a Garda for jaywalking ( or whatever you like to call it) on Gardiner Street

So what? That doesn't mean its law. It wouldn't be the first time a Garda got it wrong would it.

djimi

BostonB wrote: »

Do you drive with your foot on the brake? If not whats the difference in reaction time.

No but I drive with my foot on the pedal beside the brake. In my old car if I had my foot resting on the brake or throttle pedals the cruise control would switch off so I had to rest my foot on the floor. Big difference in the reaction times between going from throttle to brake than going from floor to brake. Maybe that was just the case with my car tho...

djimi

BostonB wrote: »

I said they can cross where they like more or less in relation to Jay walking. It wasn't a sweeping statement. I think there is a rule about using a crossing if you are within a certain distance of it. But if you are not, then you can cross wherever. I was correcting that specific point.

I never mentioned anything about people crossing dangerously, like in the middle if a 5 way junction, or a drunk staggering out. Thats a different subject.

It was the way you said "They can cross anywhere, more or less. So you drive accordingly." which to me reads like pedestrians can cross the road where ever the want to, and the onus is on drivers to ensure that there is not one walking out in front of their car, rather than on the pedestrian to ensure that they are not walking out in front of a car. In my mind the onus is on the pedestrian not to walk out in front of a moving car, not for drivers on the main road to slow to crawling speed every time they see a pedestrian in case they might wander out in front of them.

Apologies if I took you up wrong.

Heroditas

BostonB wrote: »

If you read whats written all I said was you are incorrect in your assumption that people have to cross at crossings, and they are jay walking when they don't. Don't make stuff up. Thx.

You should take your own advice and read what's written.

I never said they "had to cross" at designated crossings, I asked "shouldn't they?"

CarMuppet

BostonB wrote: »

It might be a chore, but the car can do it. The problem isn't the car.

Get cruise control if you are unable to drive at a specific speed.

Jonnykitedude wrote: »

cruise control wont work in most cars at 30km/h

Cruise control is really for motorway driving... not city built up driving.

As said about about CC won't work under 30mph/50kph in some cars. Also some cars won't allow you select CC in a gear under 4th!

maggy_thatcher

Heroditas wrote: »

What do you suggest I call people who walk out in front of cars?

Organ donors?

Also, if someone walks out in front of a car, they broke the law:

IrishStatuteBook wrote:

A pedestrian shall exercise care and take all reasonable precautions in order to avoid causing danger or inconvenience to traffic and other pedestrians.[1]

But of course it's always the drivers fault in this country.

BostonB

djimi wrote: »

No but I drive with my foot on the pedal beside the brake. In my old car if I had my foot resting on the brake or throttle pedals the cruise control would switch off so I had to rest my foot on the floor. Big difference in the reaction times between going from throttle to brake than going from floor to brake. Maybe that was just the case with my car tho...

You need to do it that often than you need your foot on the pedal. :eek:

djimi

Huh?

Stark

TheBazman wrote: »

I know of someone who got a ticking off from a Garda for jaywalking ( or whatever you like to call it) on Gardiner Street

It's "jaywalking" (or whatever we call it in this country) if you're within 15m of a crossing and cross against the light. If you're more than 15m from the crossing, then you're allowed cross when there's a gap in traffic.

BostonB

Heroditas wrote: »

You should take your own advice and read what's written.

I never said they "had to cross" at designated crossings, I asked "shouldn't they?"

The answer is still no, in Ireland. (with the exception of the distance limit).

In other countries it would be yes.

BostonB

djimi wrote: »

It was the way you said "They can cross anywhere, more or less. So you drive accordingly." which to me reads like pedestrians can cross the road where ever the want to, and the onus is on drivers to ensure that there is not one walking out in front of their car, rather than on the pedestrian to ensure that they are not walking out in front of a car. In my mind the onus is on the pedestrian not to walk out in front of a moving car, not for drivers on the main road to slow to crawling speed every time they see a pedestrian in case they might wander out in front of them.

Apologies if I took you up wrong.

Far enough.

I think the point, is drivers shouldn't expect pedestrians only at junctions/crossings. Thats completely unrealistic in Ireland. You might not agree with it, but thats the reality. Especially with lack of enforcement.

BostonB

djimi wrote: »

Huh?

You should have enough time in normal driving to move you foot from the floor to the brake pedal.

djimi

BostonB wrote: »

You should have enough time in normal driving to move you foot from the floor to the brake pedal.

And when using cruise control properly, ie when cruising on an open road, then you do, but in traffic or when driving thru a city that split second could make the difference. I know it sounds pedantic but its longer than it feels. Or again maybe thats just me...

BostonB

I should clarify, I don't agree with the limits. But they are not enforced 99% of the time anyway. So most of the traffic is usually flying down the quays when theres no traffic, its more like 50~80 is the norm off peak. Theres a lot of pedestrian traffic in places on the quays. Its not a good mix. Though I'd say the lousy lane marking cause most of the accidents between vehicles. Most pedestrian accidents are most likely in the areas with heavy pedestrians.

But people saying its physically impossible to drive at 30km/h is ridiculous. You shouldn't be on the road if you can't. Deciding not to, thats different. Expecting people to walk between bridges to cross is completely unrealistic also.

djimi

BostonB wrote: »

I should clarify, I don't agree with the limits. But they are not enforced 99% of the time anyway. So most of the traffic is usually flying down the quays when theres no traffic, its more like 50~80 is the norm off peak. Theres a lot of pedestrian traffic in places on the quays. Its not a good mix. Though I'd say the lousy lane marking cause most of the accidents between vehicles. Most pedestrian accidents are most likely in the areas with heavy pedestrians.

But people saying its physically impossible to drive at 30km/h is ridiculous. You shouldn't be on the road if you can't. Deciding not to, thats different. Expecting people to walk between bridges to cross is completely unrealistic also.

Why? Its a busy, dangerous stretch of road, and its hardly miles between pedestrian lights, especially up towards O'Connell Bridge where most of the pedestrian traffic is. Its hardly much of a heartache to walk for 20-30 seconds to the pedestrian lights if it means being able to cross the road safely, is it?

BostonB

djimi wrote: »

And when using cruise control properly, ie when cruising on an open road, then you do, but in traffic or when driving thru a city that split second could make the difference. I know it sounds pedantic but its longer than it feels. Or again maybe thats just me...

I know what you mean. It was a tongue in cheek comment aimed at those unable to drive a constant speed.

That said, theres lots of wide, even multi lane urban roads (even major roads) with unsuitable low limits, and no traffic and the garda use them to catch fish in a barrel. If you drive in england you'll see all the cars yoyo'ing speed to avoid the speed cameras. Here we just mainly ignore the limits.

BostonB

djimi wrote: »

Why? Its a busy, dangerous stretch of road, and its hardly miles between pedestrian lights, especially up towards O'Connell Bridge where most of the pedestrian traffic is. Its hardly much of a heartache to walk for 20-30 seconds to the pedestrian lights if it means being able to cross the road safely, is it?

Why? Human nature and lack of enforcement.

Theres a lot of pedestrian traffic around Capel St too.