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

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

Options
1…106107109111112…123

Comments

  • Options
    #3242
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    monument wrote: »
    The new design is even less Dutch.
    Yes, you are correct, I read the redesign wrong. Seems they are putting it back to the way it was before?

    http://www.dlrcoco.ie/media/media,9170,en.pdf


  • Options
    #3243
    mikeecho
    Registered Users Posts: 5,088 ✭✭✭mikeecho


    what have roundabouts got to do with speed cameras

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVsHu2EEfo


    Nothing at all


  • Options
    #3244
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ironclaw wrote: »
    I'm all against stupid speed limits and the vans, but there are rare occurrences (About 3 I can count) where I agree with the limits in place. Very few people can see the big picture and self imposed speed limits show complete negligence for others on the roads. But thats the self centred Irish driver for you :rolleyes:





    It isn't often I feel like thanking a post of yours, but this time I did.

    With the main exception of the first sentence in the paragraph above, I agreed with most of it.

    A little stretch of the imagination, and some more consideration of the evidence, and you might actually see the point of the GoSafe programme! :)


  • Options
    #3245
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,786 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    1. That's why enforcement is needed.
    I just love your logic.
    1. Authorities lay down a speed limit ridiculously low, has no reason whatsoever and may even be dangerous.
    2. Watch motorists disregard it.
    3. Claim that it's proof that more enforcement is needed (as opposed to a credible speed limit that actually reflects the road conditions).
    It's just gas, isn't it?

    2. What is the speed limit on the adjacent stretch of motorway where "most" are doing 100 km/h?
    100kph? The M50 is 100kph for most of it. Logic dictates that onramps should help people get up to motorway speeds ASAP. For sane people anyway.


  • Options
    #3246
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    coolisin wrote: »
    This company has GPS tracked and monitored vans which knows the speed limit of where they are and apparently have a zero tolerance approach to speeding.
    So for the sake of his job he has to drive at the posted speed limit.
    They are not even allowed brake hard or the office will know and they will have to explain why they were driving.

    I attended a RSA driving for work conference and this company had a rep talking about their road safety policy.



    Feedback for motorists is a really useful tool for improving driving standards, but how often do we get it? So we drive from A to B without hitting anybody or anything -- but does that really say anything about the standard of our driving? For example, most drunk drivers will get home safely.

    Speed surveillance is one highly effective way to discourage risky behaviour, and in-car systems like DriveCam are another. DriveCam will spot stupid or dangerous carry-on that speed cameras or traffic cops will never detect.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bbd_1229204695


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3247
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,786 ✭✭✭SeanW


    monument wrote: »
    Nothing there to suggest the design was at fault or that these accidents (or worse) could / would not have happened on the old design.
    Actaully there is everything.

    The design calls for cyclists and motorists to share the roundabout, but under totally different than normal rules.

    Usually, any road vehicle using a roundabout is supposed to go into the right lane if taking the 3rd or later exit. 1st or 2nd use the left lane. This makes the traffic flow smoothly and safely. If you force cyclists to only ever stay left, that's going to cause dangerous conflicts with cyclists undertaking motorists where the motorist may be exiting at an exit where a cyclist is carrying on to a subsequent exit.

    Undertaking is so dangerous that the laws against motorists doing it are extreme. Even on a dual carriageway or motorway, if you have some gob****e doing 60kph in the overtaking lane, you are not supposed to undertake to get past them, legally you have no recourse but crawl behind them in the driving lane.

    Yet at KTR, it seems, all of that justified concern about undertaking goes out the window, at a place where people would be making left turns as a matter of course. It would be very easy for a motorist or trucker to miss a blind spot check, turn and whack into an undertaking cyclist they would not normally expect to see.


  • Options
    #3248
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,786 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    A little stretch of the imagination, and some more consideration of the evidence, and you might actually see the point of the GoSafe programme! :)
    New speed cameras collect €10million in fines. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #3249
    mikeecho
    Registered Users Posts: 5,088 ✭✭✭mikeecho


    SeanW wrote: »
    New speed cameras collect €10million in fines. :rolleyes:

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/ireland/kfmhgbmhqlmh/

    its not making money


    i think they only catch 2 vehicles per hour of operation, on average


  • Options
    #3250
    Sterling Archer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,252 ✭✭✭Sterling Archer


    Might be of interest ot some people, AA van tending to a speed camera van about a week ago

    BH1neVFCUAAmqEo.jpg


  • Options
    #3251
    ironclaw
    Registered Users Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    A little stretch of the imagination, and some more consideration of the evidence, and you might actually see the point of the GoSafe programme! :)

    We'll have to differ there. GoSafe is a privately run, government funded sink hole for public finances. Theres no reason why that contract could not have been given to An Garda Siochana instead of handing a private company the equivalent of a blank cheque. Are their finances publicly listed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3252
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Slight edit: A little more reflection, and some deeper consideration of the evidence, and you might actually see the point of speed surveilance.


  • Options
    #3253
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,786 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Slight edit: A little more reflection, and some deeper consideration of the evidence, and you might actually see the point of speed surveilance.
    You were right the first time with the "little stretch of the imagination.


  • Options
    #3254
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mikeecho wrote: »
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/ireland/kfmhgbmhqlmh/

    its not making money


    i think they only catch 2 vehicles per hour of operation, on average
    Not making money my hole!

    So they catch 2 per hour on average(which I severely doubt, I'd expect at least one per van per hour), then it's €160 per hour. They do 6000 hours per month, that means they pull in €960,000 per month or €11,520,000 p/a. Even if they got 5 per hour, which wouldn't be that hard, they'd pull in over €28 million p/a.

    Does anyone know how many vans would operate on an average day? It would be nice to see a breakdown of their results. The minimum amount needed would be around 8 vans working around 24hrs to hit their 200hr daily target (based on 30 day month).


  • Options
    #3255
    BohsCeltic
    Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭BohsCeltic


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not making money my hole!

    So they catch 2 per hour on average(which I severely doubt, I'd expect at least one per van per hour), then it's €160 per hour. They do 6000 hours per month, that means they pull in €960,000 per month or €11,520,000 p/a. Even if they got 5 per hour, which wouldn't be that hard, they'd pull in over €28 million p/a.

    Does anyone know how many vans would operate on an average day? It would be nice to see a breakdown of their results. The minimum amount needed would be around 8 vans working around 24hrs to hit their 200hr daily target (based on 30 day month).

    When i was caught the van had been there for at least 5 hours. There was about 5 other cars on the road going faster than myself at that time alone, so in the space of 30 seconds that van could have earned €400 if it caught each car


  • Options
    #3256
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    SeanW wrote: »
    Actaully there is everything.

    The design calls for cyclists and motorists to share the roundabout, but under totally different than normal rules.

    Usually, any road vehicle using a roundabout is supposed to go into the right lane if taking the 3rd or later exit. 1st or 2nd use the left lane. This makes the traffic flow smoothly and safely. If you force cyclists to only ever stay left, that's going to cause dangerous conflicts with cyclists undertaking motorists where the motorist may be exiting at an exit where a cyclist is carrying on to a subsequent exit.

    Undertaking is so dangerous that the laws against motorists doing it are extreme. Even on a dual carriageway or motorway, if you have some gob****e doing 60kph in the overtaking lane, you are not supposed to undertake to get past them, legally you have no recourse but crawl behind them in the driving lane.

    Yet at KTR, it seems, all of that justified concern about undertaking goes out the window, at a place where people would be making left turns as a matter of course. It would be very easy for a motorist or trucker to miss a blind spot check, turn and whack into an undertaking cyclist they would not normally expect to see.

    The rules of the road long allowed for cyclists staying left on roundabouts...

    "cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout,"

    The law has also been recently changed to highlight that cyclists can undertake or as officialdom likes to say "overtake on the left".

    I would however agree with the council's now official stance that there should be far more education around such design changes before and after they are put in place.


  • Options
    #3257
    ironclaw
    Registered Users Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Slight edit: A little more reflection, and some deeper consideration of the evidence, and you might actually see the point of speed surveilance.

    Firstly, I find your post condensing implying I'm not educated or otherwise 'simple'

    Post evidence that is not produced by a police force, road safety authority, residents association or a government funded organisation and I'll consider it. And it best be from a chartered or educated source i.e. Engineering firm etc.

    Its simple to make any survey or findings positive when the implementation is costing millions. I doubt anyone from the RSA is going to say 'Yeah, just a revenue generator' when GoSafe are already more than covering their costs even in the simple example above its impossible for them not to be reaching their targets. Are you telling me a limited company can run at a loss?

    I also noticed they are registered in Kerry:
    CLIEVERAGH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
    LISTOWEL
    CO KERRY

    May as well say 'Leper Colony' :pac:


  • Options
    #3258
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ironclaw wrote: »
    Firstly, I find your post condensing implying I'm not educated or otherwise 'simple'



    I'm not implying such a thing, even if you're inferring it.

    I was responding to your attitude as expressed in that earlier post:
    ironclaw wrote: »
    Very few people can see the big picture and self imposed speed limits show complete negligence for others on the roads. But thats the self centred Irish driver for you

    In my opinion, seeing the "big picture" includes having a rational attitude to evidence (and to the objectives of public policy in the area of road safety).

    Earlier you criticised the use of a private company instead of AGS to carry out speed surveillance:
    ironclaw wrote: »
    GoSafe is a privately run, government funded sink hole for public finances. Theres no reason why that contract could not have been given to An Garda Siochana instead of handing a private company the equivalent of a blank cheque. Are their finances publicly listed?

    Firstly, GoSafe have not been handed a "blank cheque". They are paid for a set number of hours surveillance and their income is not dependent on the number of speeding detections (a policy intended to deal with the inevitable accusations of revenue collecting, fish in a barrel, blah blah etc).

    Secondly, if was purely an AGS operation, you and other speed camera sceptics would probably find reasons to question their motives (eg stealth tax, revenue targets etc). In any case, why would you want AGS to run the entire operation, since you seem to think they are biased and unreliable in terms of gathering evidence in support of speed surveillance?

    ironclaw wrote: »
    Post evidence that is not produced by a police force, road safety authority, residents association or a government funded organisation and I'll consider it. And it best be from a chartered or educated source i.e. Engineering firm etc.

    Its simple to make any survey or findings positive when the implementation is costing millions. I doubt anyone from the RSA is going to say 'Yeah, just a revenue generator' when GoSafe are already more than covering their costs even in the simple example above its impossible for them not to be reaching their targets. Are you telling me a limited company can run at a loss?


    If you want to cast reasonable doubt on the evidence in favour of speed cameras etc then you need to show where that evidence is flawed.

    Better still, post some links to good evidence from sources you consider reliable, eg the engineering profession. I'd be interested to see it.


  • Options
    #3259
    JamesBond2010
    Registered Users Posts: 2,378 ✭✭✭JamesBond2010


    Do ye 2 ever stop arguing u know who i am talking about, same thing ur always arguing about can u not agree to disagree


  • Options
    #3260
    sparkthatbled
    Registered Users Posts: 629 ✭✭✭sparkthatbled


    Thought you'd all like to know I was driving through Balbriggan about a week ago, past the school on the main road there and i saw a brown wheelie bin with a hole in the side and a lens sticking out. Either a blatant pedo in operation or the Gardai DO have that tech and are keeping it quiet...


  • Options
    #3261
    Chris_Heilong
    Registered Users Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    it would cost a pretty penny to replace one of those cameras if some scumbags found it sticking out of a wheelie bin, would burn it out.

    On another note there are speed camera signs going up all over the place around where I live, No freedom at all:mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3262
    pa990
    Registered Users Posts: 3,884 ✭✭✭pa990


    sparkthatbled wrote: »
    Thought you'd all like to know I was driving through Balbriggan about a week ago, past the school on the main road there and i saw a brown wheelie bin with a hole in the side and a lens sticking out. Either a blatant pedo in operation or the Gardai DO have that tech and are keeping it quiet...


    Scare mongering bull.

    Not a speed camera .


  • Options
    #3263
    Reg'stoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    Chris_Heilong wrote: »
    On another note there are speed camera signs going up all over the place around where I live, No freedom at all:mad:

    You still have the freedom to do what ever speed you want, interesting that the signs appear to make you take note of your speed; proof that enforcement areas work.


  • Options
    #3264
    Chris_Heilong
    Registered Users Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    Reg'stoy wrote: »
    You still have the freedom to do what ever speed you want, interesting that the signs appear to make you take note of your speed; proof that enforcement areas work.

    Thats like saying 'you are free to protest in N.Korea but something might happen if you do, take note Communism works'...:pac:


  • Options
    #3265
    jack presley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    Chris_Heilong wrote: »

    On another note there are speed camera signs going up all over the place around where I live, No freedom at all:mad:

    I don't get that. What can't you do now that you were free to do before the speed camera signs went up?


  • Options
    #3266
    CiniO
    Registered Users Posts: 16,089 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    jack presley wrote: »
    I don't get that. What can't you do now that you were free to do before the speed camera signs went up?

    He can't be speeding now, while he could before.


  • Options
    #3267
    Reg'stoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    Chris_Heilong wrote: »
    Thats like saying 'you are free to protest in N.Korea but something might happen if you do, take note Communism works'...:pac:

    nkoreaseeswhatyoudidthere.jpg


  • Options
    #3268
    opti0nal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 900 ✭✭✭opti0nal


    Chris_Heilong wrote: »
    Thats like saying 'you are free to protest in N.Korea but something might happen if you do, take note Communism works'...:pac:
    Ah, a new variant on Godwin's law....

    The small proportion of speeders who actually get caught get a small fine and a couple of penalty points...not a bullet in the back of the skull.


  • Options
    #3269
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    opti0nal wrote: »
    Ah, a new variant on Godwin's law....

    The small proportion of speeders who actually get caught get a small fine and a couple of penalty points...not a bullet in the back of the skull.

    No, that's China you're thinking of. And they don't do that anymore. It ruins the eyes, you can't sell them on the international market anymore...


  • Options
    #3270
    ironclaw
    Registered Users Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    pa990 wrote: »
    Scare mongering bull.

    Not a speed camera .

    Cheers. Tech is not in Ireland and if it is you'll need to produce damn good evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3271
    opti0nal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 900 ✭✭✭opti0nal


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    No, that's China you're thinking of. And they don't do that anymore. It ruins the eyes, you can't sell them on the international market anymore...

    The very civil Finns have a nice online calculator.

    Not sure if I agree with basing it on income though.


Advertisement