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

sparkthatbled

pa990 wrote: »

Scare mongering bull.

Not a speed camera .

Just reporting what I saw, not claiming to know the particulars and not trying to scare-monger. It may have been something completely unrelated, but it was definitely something very similar to the picture posted earlier on this thread.

As for evidence (ironclaw), I was too busy driving safely to whip out my phone and take a picture.

Mostly, I don't appreciate the implication that I'm making up "bull". I'm not some sad sack attention-seeker making up stories to feel important, just a motorist trying to keep others updated on sightings of possible new tech. I saw what I saw, make what you like of it but don't call me a liar.

ironclaw

As for evidence (ironclaw), I was too busy driving safely to whip out my phone and take a picture.

Safely stopped, took 5 mins out of your day and snapped a photo perhaps? Being a wheelie bin its probably a fairly residential area so wouldn't be too hard. Its creative writing like this:

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.

Start rumours and pub talk mills that destroys the hard work some people on here do to clear up the misconceptions of laser guided, heat seeking, thermal imaging, x-ray based GoSafe vans or whatever.

If you want to report possible new tech, then at least take the time to be scientific about it, do a 5 minute u-turn and snap a photo.

I'm sorry but its so frustrating when stuff like this gets posted with no back up. Because it drops us all back at square one. There are people here who could properly identify this tech if given a decent photo. But we're left at a loss, in the doldrums and wondering 'Hmm, maybe they do have that tech'. So really and truly, its just not worth posting if one can't back it up.

Jhcx

Can someone tell me. Just outside Dublin airports main roundabout heading out to the M1 there is a white van with 1 Garda sticker on the back. I'm presuming its a camera van yet looking on their website it's not marked as a camera location?

So is it a camera van or are they just placing it there to make people think twice about going over 60?

ironclaw

Jhcx wrote: »

Can someone tell me. Just outside Dublin airports main roundabout heading out to the M1 there is a white van with 1 Garda sticker on the back. I'm presuming its a camera van yet looking on their website it's not marked as a camera location?

So is it a camera van or are they just placing it there to make people think twice about going over 60?

I should make a shortcut on my PC for this:

Garda speed vans can appear on any road in the country, at any time, and issue a fine.

GoSafe vans can only issue fines in zones designated on the Garda.ie website.

rovoagho

I don't know whether it's a camera van or not, but the signposts are for the GoSafe vans. The Garda vans can go where they like.

mikeecho

Here's the lowdown

Garda vans use ROBOT multanova radar cam system
GoSafe use AGD radar cam system (redflex)
Garda also have Gatso GS11 (for red light enforcement, limited use at certain junctions in dublin city centre only) http://www.irishtrucker.com/news/irelands-first-red-light-enforcement-camera-007926

NO OTHER RADAR/LASER SPEED CAM SYSTEM IS IN USE

The old Garda Gatso vans have been decommissioned
The Static Gatso Cameras have been decommissioned
The Cameras attached to the LTI 20:20 laser gun are no longer in use (although the 20:20 laser guns are still in use )

opti0nal

sparkthatbled wrote: »

Just reporting what I saw, not claiming to know the particulars and not trying to scare-monger. It may have been something completely unrelated, but it was definitely something very similar to the picture posted earlier on this thread.

Did a quick google on this, there are residents campaigns in the UK using wheelie bin stickers to deter drivers from speeding through their neighbourhoods.

Maybe there's a sticker which makes it look a bin has a camera?

That said, I was driving on the M1 today, no shortage of people ignoring real, official, speed limit signs. So, not sure how effective a few stickers would be unless they're very cleverly designed.

pa990

http://petrolhigh.blogspot.ie/2011/02/vw-t2-gatso-speedtrap.html

Iwannahurl

opti0nal wrote: »

Did a quick google on this, there are residents campaigns in the UK using wheelie bin stickers to deter drivers from speeding through their neighbourhoods.

Maybe there's a sticker which makes it look a bin has a camera?

That said, I was driving on the M1 today, no shortage of people ignoring real, official, speed limit signs. So, not sure how effective a few stickers would be unless they're very cleverly designed.

There is an argument, I suppose, that every little helps.

Personally I think there is nothing better than proper traffic calming and rigorous enforcement.

ironclaw

Right, here's something I've been mulling over and wanted to put out there from the 'anti speed camera' side.

Accidents, by defintion, are random events that usually result from a string of either failures or a chain reaction. I think we can all agree from the most part its driver error or driver impairment. So its safe to say a speed camera can't stop an accident (To do so would be non-casual system) nor make it any more or less likely. You cannot state that a random event (On the most part) is more or less likely based on the speed of vehicle given the driver in question is the most likely trigger for the accident event.

However, they can reduce speed (Not argueing that) in certain areas by either their presence or 'threat of' presense. But, why then are they in low speed areas? i.e. 50 & 80 zones? And then coversely, why place them at all in say an 80km/h+ zone? Because at that speed, its irrelevant as you have already passed into a high probability of a fatal accident in the event of collision both machine or pedestrian. Remembering my theory that speed has no factor on the probabilty of an accident (Less than 5% of accidents had 'exceeding the speed limit' as a factor according to the UK Dept. of Transport and 11% according to the RSA)

Its well known that speed is a contributor to death in an accident and its pretty portional to the speed (Although not absolutely) as people have walked away from 200km/h wrecks on the Autobahn. The UK puts 25% of fatalities in accidents that involed excessive speed.

Add to this that most zones are on a national roads with little pedestrian access or removed from large urbanisation that somewhat rules of the 'pedestrian' theory of reducing speed. Also, in such an area where pedestrians are likely to come into contact with vehicles, it will for the most part be obvious to any decent driver given the road conditions (i.e. Built up area, ramps, foot paths) And where accidents do occur involving pedestrians, 59% of accidents had some attributation to pedestrian error (UK Report)


So, heres my question, why are we putting so much time effort and money into speed monitoring when it makes up such a small minority of fatal accidents on our roads? Can I hazard a guess and say because its the easiest to detect and prosecute?

Reports:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9277/rrcgb2011-04.pdf

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/2011_Road_Collision_Fact_Book.pdf

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

Right, here's something I've been mulling over and wanted to put out there from the 'anti speed camera' side.

Accidents, by defintion, are random events that usually result from a string of either failures or a chain reaction.

A lot to consider above -- I'll respond when I have time.

Meanwhile, I'll make the following comment. The word "accident" is not a neutral term, and can be misleading. Referring to accidents as being "by definition ... random events" is an example of how the word misleads.

Many "accidents" are in fact non-random and occur due to known and preventable risk factors, which is why the more neutral words collision or crash are preferable, imo.

ironclaw

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A lot to consider above -- I'll respond when I have time.

Meanwhile, I'll make the following comment. The word "accident" is not a neutral term, and can be misleading. Referring to accidents as being "by definition ... random events" is an example of how the word misleads.

Many "accidents" are in fact non-random and occur due to known and preventable risk factors, which is why the more neutral words collision or crash are preferable, imo.

I'm not using the words crash or collision in the same context as accident. I'm using accident in the term of say "An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury."

In the work place, a health and safety audit takes place to mitigate the possibility of an accident or incident i.e. Reduce its likelihood or probability of occurring. Its impossible to prevent an accident if a risk (No matter how small) still exist.

The point I was making, and I appreciate there if for and against, is that in the overall stats, speed makes up less than say 25% of contributing factors but yet probably has the largest budget for enforcement (As opposed say driver education which would, in my opinion, be a far better spend of money) But its far easier to to catch someone speeding than it would be to educate them. There's also critically no money in educating people while there is (i.e. as a case in point, GoSafe as a business exists so it cannot be trading at a loss (Note I did not say profit)) money in catching people.

Iwannahurl

Unfortunate incidents that happen unexpectedly and unintentionally will typically result in greater damage or injury when speed is higher.

Speed as a risk factor is always present. An uneducated fool driving at 30 km/h poses far less of a risk than the same fool driving at 80 km/h.

The same goes for road types. The higher the speed on the same stretch of road the higher the risk in terms of crash severity especially.

Reducing average speed has a far greater safety effect than any other measure, including alcohol and seatbelts. A 10% reduction in total traffic volume would be expected to result in a 6.5% reduction in road fatalities. The same decrease in the level of drink-driving would reduce fatalities by 1%, and if the non-wearing of seatbelts was similarly reduced road deaths would drop by 0.8%. In contrast, a 10% reduction in the mean speed of traffic can be estimated to reduce the number of road accident fatalities by 38%. Source: https://www.toi.no/article17882-29.html

ironclaw

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Reducing average speed has a far greater safety effect than any other measure, including alcohol and seatbelts. A 10% reduction in total traffic volume would be expected to result in a 6.5% reduction in road fatalities. The same decrease in the level of drink-driving would reduce fatalities by 1%, and if the non-wearing of seatbelts was similarly reduced road deaths would drop by 0.8%. In contrast, a 10% reduction in the mean speed of traffic can be estimated to reduce the number of road accident fatalities by 38%. Source: https://www.toi.no/article17882-29.html

Traffic volume? You can't use that in this instance. Volume is going to increase with populus so that's a moot point. Also I'm not argueing the fact that a higher speed may induce, as the RSA put it, a 'bigger mess' Again highlighting that high speed doesn't mean a certainty for fatalities.

However, take the two reports I posted (UK Report):

Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities. At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 12 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 25 per cent of all fatalities.

Over 60 per cent of fatalities in reported road accidents had driver or rider error or reaction (which included failing to look properly, loss of control and sudden braking), reported as a contributory factor leading to the accident.

And from the RSA section of 'Two-Vehicle Fatal Collisions in 2011, Classified by Contributory Action' we learn than only 11% invovled 'exceeding safe speed' which in itself is subjective on the word 'safe' Also the 'driver' accounts for 84% of the 'Contributory Factors to Road Collisions'

So my question still remains, why spend millions on trying to prevent speeding when it accounts for 10% of the overall accidents and 25% of the fatalities but when 'the driver' themselves accounts for 84% of the root cause? And adding to that 60% of the fatal accidents have driver error listed as a factor?

Again, is this because its easier to catch a speeder than to educate a driver? Why educate someone when it doesn't generates revenue? Would it make more sense to catch a speeder and allow that capture program to 'pay for itself' when a education program would be in fact a bottomless revenue hole?

I'm just not convinced having read those two reports that speed really is the problem. It also raises questions of the RSA which categorically states ' speed is the greatest killer on Irish roads' Really? Then why do they state that 84% of accidents are down to the driver? And in 11% of accident cases, these involved exceeding the speed limit (Over 50% was due to a car being on the road side of the road i.e. 5 times more of a factor than speed alone) That's not a majority no matter what way you look at it.

Unless of course you look at it, from in my opinion the completely wrong 'marketing' perspective, that most people that were killed we're in forward motion. Then you could safely say 'speed is the biggest killer on Irish roads' which would be a flawed statement given the above.

Iwannahurl

Traffic volume matters because it influences both speed and collision rate. Changes in traffic volume explain about 67-75% of the systematic variation in the number of accidents, and the number of injury accidents increases by about 6-10% when traffic volume increases by 10%. The predicted 38% reduction in crashes resulting from a 10% reduction in average speed takes account of any changes in traffic volume. That's all in the report I linked above.

With regard to the causes of collisions and the crucial role of speed, it is not enough to go on police or RSA reports when attempting to appreciate the big picture. There is a very large body of scientific research which shows clearly that speed is the most important risk factor to be regulated. For example, there are studies which systematically compare the injury crash rate before and after some intervention causes a change in average speed. The interventions could be measures such as traffic calming, lowered speed limits or increased enforcement. Again, all documented in detail in the above report, which is worth reading carefully.

ironclaw

Traffic volume matters because it influences both speed and collision rate. Changes in traffic volume explain about 67-75% of the systematic variation in the number of accidents, and the number of injury accidents increases by about 6-10% when traffic volume increases by 10%. The predicted 38% reduction in crashes resulting from a 10% reduction in average speed takes account of any changes in traffic volume. That's all in the report I linked above.

Agreed. Basic science dictates that the more particles in motion in a space, the more probably they are to collide. Volume in traffic is always going to be a factor, for instance the RSA states most collisions occur during rush hour.

With regard to the causes of collisions and the crucial role of speed, it is not enough to go on police or RSA reports when attempting to appreciate the big picture. There is a very large body of scientific research which shows clearly that speed is the most important risk factor to be regulated. For example, there are studies which systematically compare the injury crash rate before and after some intervention causes a change in average speed. The interventions could be measures such as traffic calming, lowered speed limits or increased enforcement. Again, all documented in detail in the above report, which is worth reading carefully.

I'll have a read of the report but the RSA findings stand, the minority of crashes involving fatalities have speed listed as the factor. A car being on the wrong side of the road is over 5 times more of a contributing factor.

As the UK Report states:

Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities. At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 12 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 25 per cent of all fatalities.

And once again, someone needs to address the question and justify the spending to combat speed when it is in the minority for contributor to a crash scenario and fatalities.

mikeecho

Has anyone spotted the vans in any of the new zones ?

ironclaw

mikeecho wrote: »

Has anyone spotted the vans in any of the new zones ?

Not on the N11 anyway. Waiting for a bank holiday weekend. Conveniently they seem to be most active on those weekends :pac:

mikeecho

mikeecho wrote: »

Has anyone spotted the vans in any of the new zones ?

spotted them in new zones. but they were the same spots that the survey vans parked in before they were made speed zones.

so i had a fair idea where exactly the gosafe van would park on each stretch, when the new zones near to me were announced

channelsurfer2

havent spotted any in the new zones but just passed the m4 toll plaza westbound in the left hand lane was an old style 98-d red white van with a guard parked on the driving seat smiling. he was making a mint catching those speeding up after paying the toll.

flutered

came across two in my travels this evening, one parked outside carrick on suir on the waterford side, the other was on its way some where i met i just at the bansha side of the cahir roundabout,

Reg'stoy

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

havent spotted any in the new zones but just passed the m4 toll plaza westbound in the left hand lane was an old style 98-d red white van with a guard parked on the driving seat smiling. he was making a mint catching those speeding up after paying the toll.

Ah FFS it's not like he gets to keep it all, he's lucky if he gets half.

_Kaiser_

Spotted 2 of the boys crouched down beside the wall at Stepaside Garda Station earlier this evening pointing the hairdryer up the nice long straight/good sight lines road :rolleyes:

Did allow me to do my good deed for the day though!

jack presley

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Spotted 2 of the boys crouched down beside the wall at Stepaside Garda Station earlier this evening pointing the hairdryer up the nice long straight/good sight lines road :rolleyes:

Did allow me to do my good deed for the day though!

129 speeding offences detected by the Gardai in the first 12 hours of Operation Slowdown according to AA Roadwatch.

Supergurrier

Straight stretch of road near a garda station, how lazy can you get

_Kaiser_

Supergurrier wrote: »

Straight stretch of road near a garda station, how lazy can you get

Judge for yourself... crouched in on the right there so they were :rolleyes:

coolisin

The closed Garda station!!

In fairness they appear there a lot and further up the road after the entrance to cruagh manor. Both decent straight stretches, this is why you will always find me sticking to the 50kph along here.

The amount of times I've being tailgated/ overtaken along here.

It's a 50kph entering/ exiting a village with alot of driveways.

AltAccount

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Judge for yourself... crouched in on the right there so they were :rolleyes:

Turn the camera around though, that straight stretch leads right into a multi lane junction in a residential village. .

That's as good a spot as any for a speed trap imho.

TwoShedsJackson

Got a fine in the post yesterday for doing 77 in 'the special speed limit 60 kmh zone at M1 CLOGHRAN' a couple of weeks ago. Was definitely there as coming back from airport but can someone tell me where and why this zone is there as I noticed nothing at the time.

ironclaw

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Got a fine in the post yesterday for doing 77 in 'the special speed limit 60 kmh zone at M1 CLOGHRAN' a couple of weeks ago. Was definitely there as coming back from airport but can someone tell me where and why this zone is there as I noticed nothing at the time.

That's a well known Garda van zone. Garda vans can appear anywhere, any time, any road as opposed to GoSafe who must adhere to their own zones.