Speed camera mega-thread ***Read first post before posting***

Our man in Havana

All pub talk. I have not seen a notice for anything below 8km over the limit.

ironclaw

Our man in Havana wrote: »

All pub talk. I have not seen a notice for anything below 8km over the limit.

I'm (somewhat) reliably informed its now 4km/h over the limit.

But even saying that, take a 50km/h section, you'd have to be doing almost 60km/h (On your speedo) to be close to a true speed of 55km/h. So no arguing there. People seem to forget that.

JMSE

ironclaw wrote: »

VERY few people in this country can spot a van, let alone tell the difference. There's maybe 4 or 5 people on this forum who can effectively tell the difference.

Count me in! I've been passing speed vans for about 16 years now and although I've sometimes thought I've been nabbed, I dont think I've ever missed one.

I can recall the first gatso I spotted, he was sitting under the overpass between the Finglas exit and the Blanch exit southbound on the M50, in a '94 Renault Traffic van. Myself and the GF were heading for Janelle northbound and saw it on the other side, the back window sectioned glass was a giveaway and the skylight in the roof of a panel van made it look obvious someone was inside. The green one looked very similar to a 'Caterline' van. The gatsos then upgraded from the old Renaults into the lwb extra high roof Transits with the giveaway skylights and same back window camera setup. Blue electric (220v?) chargepoint sockets were visible near the rear/side.

Its funny to see now how the gatso vans are putting 'Garda' and the speedcamera decal on the sides of their newest additions, cant see what has prompted this 'coming out', maybe its so nearby residents arent suspicious of unmarked white vans hanging around.

As for the gosafe vans, if I see one of the monitoring vans and think I might have been a little over, I make a note of the time and place and the fact that it wasnt a gosafe fully marked van, just in case.... I've definitely been open to being caught a few times as I came within view of these fully marked up gosafes, but think that I've heard nothing for varying reasons;

* just because I can see the van doesnt mean he's actually monitoring me yet, i.e. hes taking closer up pics of people passing him

* he's possibly on a break or hasnt set up yet

* they allow that extra few kmph despite the rumours to the contrary

Whatever about the gosafes, if I was in charge of gatso and wanted to be less visible to approaching traffic, I'd be using old corrollas and golfs, horse trailers, office blocks overlooking the N4 at Liffey Valley Dublin, overlooking the South Ring Rd at Mahon in Cork, its a no-brainer, almost unspottable and guaranteed money.

pa990

JMSE wrote: »

Count me in! I've been passing speed vans for about 16 years now and although I've sometimes thought I've been nabbed, I dont think I've ever missed one.

I can recall the first gatso I spotted, he was sitting under the overpass between the Finglas exit and the Blanch exit southbound on the M50, in a '94 Renault Traffic van. Myself and the GF were heading for Janelle northbound and saw it on the other side, the back window sectioned glass was a giveaway and the skylight in the roof of a panel van made it look obvious someone was inside. The green one looked very similar to a 'Caterline' van. The gatsos then upgraded from the old Renaults into the lwb extra high roof Transits with the giveaway skylights and same back window camera setup. Blue electric (220v?) chargepoint sockets were visible near the rear/side.

Its funny to see now how the gatso vans are putting 'Garda' and the speedcamera decal on the sides of their newest additions, cant see what has prompted this 'coming out', maybe its so nearby residents arent suspicious of unmarked white vans hanging around.

As for the gosafe vans, if I see one of the monitoring vans and think I might have been a little over, I make a note of the time and place and the fact that it wasnt a gosafe fully marked van, just in case.... I've definitely been open to being caught a few times as I came within view of these fully marked up gosafes, but think that I've heard nothing for varying reasons;

* just because I can see the van doesnt mean he's actually monitoring me yet, i.e. hes taking closer up pics of people passing him

* he's possibly on a break or hasnt set up yet

* they allow that extra few kmph despite the rumours to the contrary

Whatever about the gosafes, if I was in charge of gatso and wanted to be less visible to approaching traffic, I'd be using old corrollas and golfs, horse trailers, office blocks overlooking the N4 at Liffey Valley Dublin, overlooking the South Ring Rd at Mahon in Cork, its a no-brainer, almost unspottable and guaranteed money.

and how would you get the transit into the office block?

I doubt it would fit in the lift

JMSE

yeah that'd be a giveaway, a transit wedged in a lift door, but they could just use the stairs instead

no, what i meant was i would put the speed detection eqiupment along with an operator behind a window on an upper floor, fish from barrel

pa990

JMSE wrote: »

yeah that'd be a giveaway, a transit wedged in a lift door, but they could just use the stairs instead

no, what i meant was i would put the speed detection eqiupment along with an operator behind a window on an upper floor, fish from barrel

youd need laser cams, the current equipment has limitations, that wouldn't allow what you're suggesting.

anyway, the mantra is all about hi vizibilty.

imo, if you can't see a gosafe van. What else is the driver not seeing?
you have to be very close before a reading and pic is taken.

channelsurfer2

out in force today. just past the 80kph sign at liffey valley heading out of town and then again on the old n4 road about 3km after you leave the motor way for enfield....(that spot seems to be a favorite spot these days). luckily i was obeying the speed limit but90% of the cars at liffey vally werent.....

I.S.T.

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

out in force today. just past the 80kph sign at liffey valley heading out of town and then again on the old n4 road about 3km after you leave the motor way for enfield....(that spot seems to be a favorite spot these days). luckily i was obeying the speed limit but90% of the cars at liffey vally werent.....

Please report here, thanks.

ironclaw

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

out in force today. just past the 80kph sign at liffey valley heading out of town and then again on the old n4 road about 3km after you leave the motor way for enfield....(that spot seems to be a favorite spot these days). luckily i was obeying the speed limit but90% of the cars at liffey vally werent.....

Report it on Trapster.

Gibbonw2

The van that is very often located on the sallins/naas road opposite Oldtown just after the speed limit alters from 60 to 50 is a shocking example of revenue making. A safe passage of road with an excellent safety record. I have already been done for driving 55 in that zone, and very worried i was hovering just over the 50 today before i seen the van hidden in the darkened roadside. Surely common sense in these situations would allow for a minor discretion (ie 1 to 6/7 kmph ) so that people can appeal. I am a safe , rule abiding driver and to get penalised twice for such a fine margin is infuriating and a joke, if i'm honest. Typical Ireland!

ironclaw

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

The van that is very often located on the sallins/naas road opposite Oldtown just after the speed limit alters from 60 to 50 is a shocking example of revenue making. A safe passage of road with an excellent safety record. I have already been done for driving 55 in that zone, and very worried i was hovering just over the 50 today before i seen the van hidden in the darkened roadside. Surely common sense in these situations would allow for a minor discretion (ie 1 to 6/7 kmph ) so that people can appeal. I am a safe , rule abiding driver and to get penalised twice for such a fine margin is infuriating and a joke, if i'm honest. Typical Ireland!

True speed 55km/h would have been far closer to 60km/h on your speedo. You would have been above the limit. And there is a margin allowed. So you knew you were well over 50km/h. The only appeal you would have is if they were within (I think) 200m of a limit change. I don't know if thats legislation though.

I don't promote speed vans, genuinely I hate them. But common sense and staying to the limit in the zones means you'll never be caught. We're actually extremely lucky here in Ireland with the limited measures leveraged against drivers. Go for a drive in Arizona, or the States in general, and see just what different technology they can use.

jack presley

ironclaw wrote: »

True speed 55km/h would have been far closer to 60km/h on your speedo. You would have been above the limit. And there is a margin allowed. So you knew you were well over 50km/h. The only appeal you would have is if they were within (I think) 200m of a limit change. I don't know if thats legislation though.

I don't promote speed vans, genuinely I hate them. But common sense and staying to the limit in the zones means you'll never be caught. We're actually extremely lucky here in Ireland with the limited measures leveraged against drivers. Go for a drive in Arizona, or the States in general, and see just what different technology they can use.

But in Arizona, not only do they have signs with cameras on them to tell you are in a zone where they monitor speed, they actually put up another temporary sign when they are actually out enforcing. It's like they're saying "we're here today"

ironclaw

jack presley wrote: »

But in Arizona, not only do they have signs with cameras on them to tell you are in a zone where they monitor speed, they actually put up another temporary sign when they are actually out enforcing. It's like they're saying "we're here today"

They do that here for GoSafe If you enter a GoSafe zone, for the 10km of road at most thats in it, just keep to the limit. Obviously that all changes with Garda, any time any where. And then its up to the individual driver to be aware. It just goes to show how incapable many are of driving at speed and being vigilant. If you can't spot a van or Garda trap, then your not really paying full attention for the speed your progressing at. If your going to do serious speed, you should at least be driving defensively versus speed traps. There are ways of doing it very effectively by adapting your driving style.

My experience in Arizona, I was never caught, was red light cameras and mobile speed everywhere. Most unmarked and very well hidden. Arizona is actually the home of RedFlex, who supply the gear to GoSafe. Didn't have a chance to say Hi at their HQ for all the good work their doing here :rolleyes:

jack presley

Arizona is probably the state I've driven most in America and thank God like you I was never caught speeding! However anytime I saw a speed check (and I passed quite a few over the years) as well as the standard permanent signs like we have here, the cop or whoever, about a half mile or so from where he was set up would put up another portable, fold up sign in the hard shoulder informing motorists that checks were taking place at that time. I found it very bizarre. Only a moron would get caught with that sort of warning.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

Arizona is actually the home of RedFlex, who supply the gear to GoSafe. Didn't have a chance to say Hi at their HQ for all the good work their doing here :rolleyes:

They (in general) could do things a lot better in the USA: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81893564&postcount=119

ironclaw

Iwannahurl wrote: »

They (in general) could do things a lot better in the USA: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81893564&postcount=119

I'm not sure that graph is adjusted for population.

The UK had a population of 56,209,000 in 1979. It was 62,990,000 in 2012. The USA had 225,000,000 in 1979 and 313,000,000 in 2012. Thats a pretty big difference in the number of people actually on the road.

The US is of course about 40 times bigger by land mass, but under went a 30% population increase, versus about 10% in the UK. (If you note the USA is actually about a third higher in that graph)

Statistic then, more people are going to be killed if more people are on the road. Unless each country was adjusted for size and populous, you can't compare death rates. Even a UK / Ireland comparison would be bogus. The US also has a very different road network and climate to match. Something you can't compare on a graph to random, fairly static climate countries

All that said, I don't believe speed vans reduce deaths. Driver education and physical police presence does. We have an extremely ineffective traffic corp. They concentrate on tax, insurance, NCT and occasionally drink driving. Only one of them actually causes death on our roads. Nothing is ever done about bad driving skills and technique which are a far greater hazard.

Mycroft H

AltAccount wrote: »

I've never ever ever seen proof that people are being done for such low tolerances.

Maybe not the Gatso/Go Safe vans but I got done by a TC Garda with a hairdryer doing 67 in a 60 zone. Pathetic

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

I'm not sure that graph is adjusted for population.

The UK had a population of 56,209,000 in 1979. It was 62,990,000 in 2012. The USA had 225,000,000 in 1979 and 313,000,000 in 2012. Thats a pretty big difference in the number of people actually on the road.

The US is of course about 40 times bigger by land mass, but under went a 30% population increase, versus about 10% in the UK. (If you note the USA is actually about a third higher in that graph)

Statistic then, more people are going to be killed if more people are on the road. Unless each country was adjusted for size and populous, you can't compare death rates. Even a UK / Ireland comparison would be bogus. The US also has a very different road network and climate to match. Something you can't compare on a graph to random, fairly static climate countries

All that said, I don't believe speed vans reduce deaths. Driver education and physical police presence does. We have an extremely ineffective traffic corp. They concentrate on tax, insurance, NCT and occasionally drink driving. Only one of them actually causes death on our roads. Nothing is ever done about bad driving skills and technique which are a far greater hazard.

Actually you can compare road death rates between countries, with appropriate caveats, but in any case that's not what the graph is illustrating. The metric of interest is the percentage decrease in road deaths 1979-2002 for four countries.

Regardless of whether conditions differed massively in each country (and I don't believe they did) it should still be possible to introduce targeted policies and programmes as needed to achieve a reduction in road deaths. In that regard the US performed badly compared to GB, Canada and Australia in the specified time period.

Speed cameras reduce road deaths -- the evidence for that is well established.

Iwannahurl

BX 19 wrote: »

Maybe not the Gatso/Go Safe vans but I got done by a TC Garda with a hairdryer doing 67 in a 60 zone. Pathetic

A fair cop, IMO.

67 km/h is a lot more dangerous than 60 km/h, though the difference feels trivial when you're in the car (and nothing bad happens).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpZRxo3EWAc

pa990

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A fair cop, IMO.

67 km/h is a lot more dangerous than 60 km/h, though the difference feels trivial when you're in the car (and nothing bad happens).

and 60km/h is more dangerous than 55km/h
and 30km.h is more dangerous than 25km/h
and 25km/h is ..........

i dont like speed cams but, if you have your wits about, drive to the conditions, and are observant you have a damn good chance of not getting caught.

I regularly exceed the limit in certain areas that are monitored by speed cams, both gosafe and garda, and i've always adjusted my speed in time.

Garda vans are almost always easy to spot and as for the GoSafe vans... you'd really want to be playing with yourself to not notice them

Iwannahurl

pa990 wrote: »

and 60km/h is more dangerous than 55km/h
and 30km.h is more dangerous than 25km/h
and 25km/h is ..........

Not proportionately -- that's the killer difference.

pa990

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Not proportionately -- that's the killer difference.

i never mentioned proportionality.

the facts remain

Iwannahurl

pa990 wrote: »

i never mentioned proportionality.

the facts misconceptions remain

I know. FYP accordingly.

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Actually you can compare road death rates between countries, with appropriate caveats,

Oh dear, no you most certainly can't. You can compare road deaths per head of population, per million vehicle kms travelled, indeed per million vehicles. You cannot compare absolute road deaths.

but in any case that's not what the graph is illustrating. The metric of interest is the percentage decrease in road deaths 1979-2002 for four countries.

The graph is illustrating nothing. For all we know the amount of vehicles on the road in the USA have quadrupled while vehicles on the road in the other countries have only doubled. Or vehicles in the US on average travel three times as afar as the rest.

Regardless of whether conditions differed massively in each country (and I don't believe they did) it should still be possible to introduce targeted policies and programmes as needed to achieve a reduction in road deaths. In that regard the US performed badly compared to GB, Canada and Australia in the specified time period.

You have no evidence for that.

Reasons why your graph and post were irrelevant:
The average US driver travels 40% more miles than the UK driver
GB Pop: 62m. Amount of vehicles on GB roads: 34m
US Pop: 311m. Amount of vehicles on US roads: 254m

Conclusion: Your graph was deliberately picked because it completely misconstrued the reality of the situtation.

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

Oh dear, no you most certainly can't. You can compare road deaths per head of population, per million vehicle kms travelled, indeed per million vehicles. You cannot compare absolute road deaths.

The graph is illustrating nothing. For all we know the amount of vehicles on the road in the USA have quadrupled while vehicles on the road in the other countries have only doubled. Or vehicles in the US on average travel three times as afar as the rest.

Reasons why your graph and post were irrelevant:
The average US driver travels 40% more miles than the UK driver
GB Pop: 62m. Amount of vehicles on GB roads: 34m
US Pop: 311m. Amount of vehicles on US roads: 254m

Conclusion: Your graph was deliberately picked because it completely misconstrued the reality of the situtation.

If you're going to try to argue with statistics it helps to read and comprehend the information properly.

I didn't refer to absolute numbers. If you believe otherwise, can you quote the exact text where I compare the absolute number of road deaths?

Why would I do that, when for example there are currently around 200 road deaths annually in the RoI (population 4.5 million) compared to around 2000 deaths in GB (pop. 62 million) yet traffic-related death rates for each jurisdiction are broadly similar?

The key word is rate, as in "you can compare road death rates between countries, with appropriate caveats".

As for your claim that "the graph is illustrating nothing", I'm afraid that is just silly. Go back and look at the original post again, as well as the links relating to it. What the graph shows is that in the specified time period 1979-2002 the USA did not reduce road deaths as much as some other countries did. Conclusion: they could have done better.


.

opti0nal

pa990 wrote: »

i never mentioned proportionality.

Do you understand that that if somebody steps out, or drives out in front of you, in a place where you've decided to break the law and exceed the posted speed limit you're more likely to kill or maim that person, because of your decision to speed, even if it's not otherwise, your fault?

The decision to endanger others, even passively, is not yours to take.

ironclaw

opti0nal wrote: »

Do you understand that that if somebody steps out, or drives out in front of you, in a place where you've decided to break the law and exceed the posted speed limit you're more likely to kill or maim that person, because of your decision to speed, even if it's not otherwise, your fault?

The decision to endanger others, even passively, is not yours to take.

Without sounding pig-headed, if someone steps out in front of you, in an area where its possible to exceed the speed limit to the extent to kill someone i.e. N11, M50 etc then they are an idiot (Making clear the distinction that doing mad speed like 80km/h in the city centre is condemnable). Likewise, if someone pulls out in front of you (And ignores your right of way) they are a fool.

Why people defend those that waste good food and oxygen is beyond me.

I have no issue if someone wants to break the speed limit and do it safely. There are two distinct class of drivers on this forum, those that will break it in a safe manner i.e. Wide, open road and those that do it recklessly i.e. 80km/h in a built-up area. You can't paint both with the same brush. Knowing your limits and pushing them are very different.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

Without sounding pig-headed, if someone steps out in front of you, in an area where its possible to exceed the speed limit to the extent to kill someone i.e. N11, M50 etc then they are an idiot (Making clear the distinction that doing mad speed like 80km/h in the city centre is condemnable). Likewise, if someone pulls out in front of you (And ignores your right of way) they are a fool.

Why people defend those that waste good food and oxygen is beyond me.

I have no issue if someone wants to break the speed limit and do it safely. There are two distinct class of drivers on this forum, those that will break it in a safe manner i.e. Wide, open road and those that do it recklessly i.e. 80km/h in a built-up area. You can't paint both with the same brush. Knowing your limits and pushing them are very different.

Do you mean two distinct classes of 'speeders'? Though many drivers break the speed limit, whether through carelessness or recklessness or for some other reason, not all of them do.

The "my speed" argument is regularly trotted out in forums and threads such as this. Why people defend, and try to rationalise, such behaviour is beyond me.

It's why enforcement measures, especially penalty points perhaps, had to be invented.

One of the disturbing problems with speeding is that while most people accept that speeding increases crash risk, most people continue to speed. While drink driving is generally viewed as socially unacceptable, speeding is not.

Research has shown that people make false distinctions about categories of speeding.

Many people define speeding by 5-10 km/h as merely 'driving over the limit' and even view speeding by 10-20 km/h as 'acceptable speeding'. Many people consider 'real speeding' to be only speeding by more than 20 km/h.

These are dangerous attitudes because there is no such thing as safe speeding.

The risk of a crash in a 60 km/h speed zone causing death or injury increases rapidly even with relatively small increases of speed. The crash risk at 65 km/h is about twice the risk at 60 km/h. At 70 km/h the crash risk is more than four times the risk at 60 km/h.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/campaigns/speeding.html

The profile of drivers with such attitudes and misperceptions also explains some of the facts in reports such as this one.

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If you're going to try to argue with statistics it helps to read and comprehend the information properly.

Hi there, I did - unfortunately the same cannot be said for you.

I didn't refer to absolute numbers. If you believe otherwise, can you quote the exact text where I compare the absolute number of road deaths?

Your quoted graph is comparing absolute road deaths in countries as a percentage of the 1979 value.

Why would I do that,

I don't know why you would do that, but you did.

As for your claim that "the graph is illustrating nothing", I'm afraid that is just silly.

I showed why it does not illustrate anything meaningful and I explained such in depth.
You're just ignoring that because you have either a profound lack of understanding of statistics, or you just like to make believe when you're wrong *shrug*

Go back and look at the original post again, as well as the links relating to it.

Why would I need to?

What the graph shows is that in the specified time period 1979-2002 the USA did not reduce road deaths as much as some other countries did.

Which is a meaningless statistic as it is comparing absolute rates of road deaths, not road deaths per head of population, road deaths per vehicle, road deaths per million km or any other comparable statistic. As I've already explained, and you've already ignored.

Conclusion: they could have done better.

Categorically false for the reasons already explained.

Our man in Havana

Change the record folks.