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

Iwannahurl

Pataman wrote: »

There is a school just past the junction on the right, which might justify the speed limit.

| could see a school sports hall marked on Google Maps so I presumed there was a school adjacent to it. BTW, the Google Maps link posted earlier also showed the new Monkstown Ring Road under construction. Apparently some people regard the MRR as likely to contribute to traffic problems in the area.

Also BTW, the 50 kph limit does not need such specific justification, since 50 is the standard limit for built-up areas anyway. Enforcing the limit rigorously is also fully justified even if no deaths had ever occurred on NTP Avenue, IMO.



EDIT: This Herald report shows the new speed/safety cameras were assigned to Newtownpark Avenue as early as Jan 7, if not earlier. No surprise there then. The photo accompanying the article also suggests that this route is used by cyclists (the usual now-you-see-it-now-you-don't "cycle lane"). And of course there is the ubiquitous abuse of footpaths, in this case brand new footpaths, by obnoxious parkers.

Atomic Pineapple

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The speed limit is 50 kph. That's what has been lawfully determined and that's what motorists should comply with. Who gets to decide that driving too fast on that road can be done "safely" and "without hassle"? Motorists who like/condone speeding? Or perhaps the local residents, cyclists who use that busy route or pedestrians?

With proper expenditure on educating and constantly re-educating the driving population about how to drive appropriately in specific scenarios you would eliminate the need to for inflexible limits to be placed in areas because drivers would have been educated on how to access the situation and drive accordingly.

I don't condone speeding however I also don't accept driving at 55km/h in a 50km/h zone as speeding, its not as black and white as that despite what any statistics say.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Terms like "excessively speeding" are, to my mind, just self-serving justifications for selfish behaviour on the roads. AFAIK there have been at least two road fatalities on the Newtownpark Road within the last six or seven years. It's also a narrow enough road that's busy with traffic (including HGVs, though that may have changed in recent times) and there is also a quality of life issue for residents and vulnerable road users passing through.

You count going 1km/h over a posted a limit as speeding but in my opinion that is very short sighted, when I say excessively speeding I mean actual speeders, people who have total disregard for the safety of others and the one's that should be targeted and only them if this is about safety.

Had the camera been there at the start or end of school and catching people doing 15km/h or more over the limit then I'd have no problem with it and no one could argue with it's use there.

The road isn't narrow at all, cars are left abandoned on one side though which make it narrow, these in my mind create more of a danger than someone traveling 5km/h over a posted limit but nothing is done about them.

I'm not sure what you mean by quality of life issues?

Pataman wrote: »

There is a school just past the junction on the right, which might justify the speed limit.

No one is at school at 7:00 pm on a Sunday.

Top Dog

Iwannahurl wrote: »

This thread "proves" nothing of the sort, nor could it.

As for the implication that two deaths in less than a decade on a specific road might not be a matter of serious concern, I imagine that the families of the people killed might see things a little differently.

How many posters on this thread, myself included, have witnessed these Safety Vans on stretches of road with little to no history of accidents or deaths? What more proof do you want that there is, in a great number of cases, absolutely no safety implication behind their siting? That the only reasonable explaination is that they're there to generate revenue and little more?

And no-where did I say that ANY number of deaths wasn't a matter for concern - I stated that 2 in 6 or 7 years is not the level of incident to warrant a road particularly dangerous or a black spot. Of course EVERY death is a matter for concern.

Iwannahurl

draffodx wrote: »

With proper expenditure on educating and constantly re-educating the driving population about how to drive appropriately in specific scenarios you would eliminate the need to for inflexible limits to be placed in areas because drivers would have been educated on how to access the situation and drive accordingly.

I'm willing to be educated on this matter, but to the best of my knowledge at this time there is no developed country in the world (including and perhaps especially those with a better road safety record than ours) that does not impose a range of speed limits. Education and enforcement are not mutually exclusive options: they are two essential elements of any sustainable road safety policy.

draffodx wrote: »

I don't condone speeding however I also don't accept driving at 55km/h in a 50km/h zone as speeding, its not as black and white as that despite what any statistics say.

There is absolutely no valid reason that I can think of to drive faster than the posted speed limit in normal circumstances. It is not a need, it is a choice. That choice has consequences, one of which is the possibility of being detected and fined. Motorists' acceptance or otherwise of the legal realities doesn't matter one whit. That's why enforcement exists, and that is why effective enforcement gets results.

draffodx wrote: »

You count going 1km/h over a posted a limit as speeding but in my opinion that is very short sighted, when I say excessively speeding I mean actual speeders, people who have total disregard for the safety of others and the one's that should be targeted and only them if this is about safety.

I haven't mentioned "1km/h" at all. Properly implemented surveillance detects everyone over the speed limit (within whatever tolerances/parameters apply) not just those who some people choose to regard as "actual speeders". The reference point is always the legally posted speed limit, not some people's opinion of what the speed limit ought to be. To do otherwise would be a recipe for confusion and chaos.

draffodx wrote: »

Had the camera been there at the start or end of school and catching people doing 15km/h or more over the limit then I'd have no problem with it and no one could argue with it's use there.

The road isn't narrow at all, cars are left abandoned on one side though which make it narrow, these in my mind create more of a danger than someone traveling 5km/h over a posted limit but nothing is done about them.

(a) See previous point.
(B) The road looked narrow to me in places on StreetView, and I was told, perhaps incorrectly, that it is narrow along some stretches. Illegally/inappropriately parked cars can be hazardous. However, properly parked cars along a street can actually slow down traffic, which increases safety. A vehicle passing a parked vehicle at, say, 30 kph is inherently less dangerous than a vehicle travelling at 55 kph where there are no cars parked. Speed is the primary factor that increases both probability and severity of a collision.
(c) It is typical of AGS and traffic wardens that they do not effecively tackle illegal parking at certain times and in certain places, especially abuse of pedestrian facilities IMO. Now that the authorities at last seem to be taking speed enforcement seriously, perhaps they might see the light regarding the problems created by obnoxious parking.

draffodx wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by quality of life issues?

Perception of safety is almost as important as actual risk for vulnerable road users. Cyclists, pedestrians, older people, disabled people, children and their parents all feel intimidated by fast-moving motorised vehicles especially when traffic volumes are high. Such conditions also degrade the "liveability" of a street, with noise pollution adding to the other unpleasant aspects.

draffodx wrote: »

No one is at school at 7:00 pm on a Sunday.

Irrelevant, IMO. The lawfully determined speed limit on the road in question is 50 kph and that's all there is to it. The overall aim of the speed/safety camera programme is to bring about a greater level of compliance. That's a worthwhile aim in any location at any time of the day.

Iwannahurl

Top Dog wrote: »

How many posters on this thread, myself included, have witnessed these Safety Vans on stretches of road with little to no history of accidents or deaths? What more proof do you want that there is, in a great number of cases, absolutely no safety implication behind their siting? That the only reasonable explaination is that they're there to generate revenue and little more?

And no-where did I say that ANY number of deaths wasn't a matter for concern - I stated that 2 in 6 or 7 years is not the level of incident to warrant a road particularly dangerous or a black spot. Of course EVERY death is a matter for concern.

I wouldn't rely on Boards to produce an accurate account of the situation. And, purely as a matter of personal opinion rather than as a comment on the operational aspects of the programme, I don't really care where the speed/safety cameras are sited. They should be ubiquitous, in my view. I'd like to see them on the residential streets in my neighbourhood, where there have been no fatalities or serious injuries but where large numbers of motorists break the speed limit with equal parts indifference and impunity.

If I recall correctly, you said "two deaths in 6 or 7 years do not a black spot make". What's your definition of a "black spot" and why does it matter?

Top Dog

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If I recall correctly, you said "two deaths in 6 or 7 years do not a black spot make". What's your definition of a "black spot" and why does it matter?

A black spot (in my opinion) is any stretch of road that see's a high number of accidents, not necessarily fatalities, over a given period of time.

If a road has been the site of multiple accidents, in other words - a much higher frequency than the normal average one might be able to calculate, then that is a dangerous road and should be marked as such.

As to why it matters - the safety vans were supposed to reduce the frequency and severity of accidents on known dangerous sections of roads. If they're being deployed to areas that have a low or non-existent accident record then they're not doing the job they were intended for.

The whole PR spin was that they were being introduced to reduce the number of accidents, but if they're only ever on safe stretches then they're doing nothing to reduce the number of accidents on the better known dangerous areas.

I've passed a good number of these vans over the past few weeks (at least 10 different sites) and only ONE of these was within 2 miles of a known dangerous stretch of road that has seen a high number of accidents over the past few years.

Iwannahurl

Improving compliance, and controlling speed, overall will improve road safety in general. That's a worthwhile aim/outcome IMO. Personally it doesn't bother me in the least where I encounter the speed/safety cameras. I have seen one or two and I could not tell you whether or not they were in the pre-determined "black spots". It made no difference to me. Perhaps that's the main reason why I see this point as a non-issue. Anecdotal accounts on Boards of speed/safety cameras allegedly being spotted on roads not labelled as "black spots" don't really amount to much, IMO. Such reports also don't indicate that the cameras are not also being deployed on roads known to be dangerous.

If there had been two road fatalities in the neighbourhood that I have been living in for the last nine years I assure you that it would have a huge impact, regardless of whether the area was designated a "black spot". As it is the chronic speeding is a source of concern for many, the residents association having failed to spark any interest in the problem among local authority officials or AGS. Although there have been collisions and some injuries, but not fatalities, a speed/safety camera would be most welcome because it would send a message to the speeding motorists and give some hope of improved safety to the locals. That would be justification enough for me, and I see no reason why any community should have to wait for the accident rate to reach a "much higher frequency than the normal average" before such enforcement action is taken.

thegreek15

There was a marked Gatso Van last Tuesday evening 4pm in Ballymount Industrial Estate... http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Dublin,+County+Fingal,+Ireland&ll=53.31413,-6.350544&spn=0.000453,0.00142&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=53.31413,-6.350544&panoid=Wf1uGSZuaIHdtRy43CTvOw&cbp=12,246.03,,0,6.27 A wide Road 400-500 metres long with no pedestrians, cyclists etc that I've ever seen... serves no purpose to have one here... 50 or 60km..

Top Dog

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Personally it doesn't bother me in the least where I encounter the speed/safety cameras.

I guess thats the point where we differ in opinion

Iwannahurl

thegreek15 wrote: »

There was a marked Gatso Van last Tuesday evening 4pm in Ballymount Industrial Estate... http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Dublin,+County+Fingal,+Ireland&ll=53.31413,-6.350544&spn=0.000453,0.00142&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=53.31413,-6.350544&panoid=Wf1uGSZuaIHdtRy43CTvOw&cbp=12,246.03,,0,6.27 A wide Road 400-500 metres long with no pedestrians, cyclists etc that I've ever seen... serves no purpose to have one here... 50 or 60km..

A neat example of the unreliability of Boards anecdotes.

You mightn't have seen the cyclist (lots of motorists apparently don't, especially on roundabouts in my experience!) but Google's spies did. Here's the cyclist in the distance, and here's the same pedal-pusher nipping round the corner moments later.

The presence of cycle lanes and footpaths on this road suggests the potential presence of cyclists and pedestrians. Enforcement of the speed limit is fully justified here, as it is everywhere else. My gut feeling is that motorists just like driving fast along this stretch, and they resent having the limit enforced.

subway

there was an unmarked van on north strand last thursday night around midnight.
pity they dont have radar breathalysers tbh.

samsemtex

Oh wise one, please explain why a speed camera plonks itself right here every so often in this badly signed 60kph zone.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kilbehenny,+County+Limerick,+Ireland&ll=52.255401,-8.277505&spn=0.000251,0.002366&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.255401,-8.277505&panoid=LAVEt5iRiM-OTpiPdfBG2w&cbp=12,26.79,,0,6.63

Iwannahurl

samsemtex wrote: »

Oh wise one, please explain why a speed camera plonks itself right here every so often in this badly signed 60kph zone.

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Kilbehenny,+County+Limerick,+Ireland&ll=52.255401,-8.277505&spn=0.000251,0.002366&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.255401,-8.277505&panoid=LAVEt5iRiM-OTpiPdfBG2w&cbp=12,26.79,,0,6.63

While we're waiting for a wise one to come up with the answer, I would suggest that (a) the 60 kph limit is because of the road layout, including this left turn, and (b) there is a chronic problem of motorists breaking the 60 kph limit on this stretch. Just guessing.

As for bad signage, that's a common problem in this country. If you think that the signage is inadequate, dangerous or not compliant with guidelines, you should hassle the local authority and/or NRA to get it fixed.

samsemtex

Iwannahurl wrote: »

While we're waiting for a wise one to come up with the answer, I would suggest that (a) the 60 kph limit is because of the road layout, including this left turn, and (b) there is a chronic problem of motorists breaking the 60 kph limit on this stretch. Just guessing.

So there should be a 60kph limit every where there is a turn off to the left or right? That is pretty much every mile of every N road in the country in that case. And considering that road is straight and almost 3 times as wide as many N roads in the country that argument makes even less sense.

Your point (b) is not a valid reason. That is the problem we are talking about. Speed traps in inappropriate areas to generate cash. A speed limit should have logic and be there for safety reasons. That speed limit probably gets broken all the time and the main reason for that is that it is way too low. Its utterly inappropriate but its a cash cow. There is no danger there and it will not save a single life.

If there is no danger and the purpose of these is to save lives and not make money, why is it there? Why isnt it somewhere that is residential/would save lives?

If these cameras were really about saving lives then they would almost exclusively be on R roads where the majority of fatal/serious crashes occur. From what i can see they are placed on dual carriage ways with low limits and wide N roads many of which have been bypassed since the last major accident on them.

Since you think all that matters is the speed limit that is stated on the sign and nothing else, I assume you think this speed limit is correct and should be adhered to too?



As no one is ever likely to get up to 80kph on this road, I assume it is impossible to drive dangerously on it?

Iwannahurl

samsemtex wrote: »

So there should be a 60kph limit every where there is a turn off to the left or right? That is pretty much every mile of every N road in the country in that case. And considering that road is straight and almost 3 times as wide as many N roads in the country that argument makes even less sense.

Your point (b) is not a valid reason. That is the problem we are talking about. Speed traps in inappropriate areas to generate cash. A speed limit should have logic and be there for safety reasons. That speed limit probably gets broken all the time and the main reason for that is that it is way too low. Its utterly inappropriate but its a cash cow. There is no danger there and it will not save a single life.

If there is no danger and the purpose of these is to save lives and not make money, why is it there? Why isnt it somewhere that is residential/would save lives?

If these cameras were really about saving lives then they would almost exclusively be on R roads where the majority of fatal/serious crashes occur. From what i can see they are placed on dual carriage ways with low limits and wide N roads many of which have been bypassed since the last major accident on them.

Since you think all that matters is the speed limit that is stated on the sign and nothing else, I assume you think this speed limit is correct and should be adhered to too?



As no one is ever likely to get up to 80kph on this road, I assume it is impossible to drive dangerously on it?

1. Have you a source for that claim about R roads?

2. Please don't make such assumptions. Argue your own points on their own merits, preferably with reference to evidence, rather than on what you think I think.

996tt

laughing my ass off at Iwannahurl, is there any speeding thread on boards that you are not trying to spread the word of iwannahurl on, you are like a jehovah's witness. Then once you are challenged about your facts you just move on to the next thread

-Chris-

996tt wrote: »

laughing my ass off at Iwannahurl, is there any speeding thread on boards that you are not trying to spread the word of iwannahurl on, you are like a jehovah's witness. Then once you are challenged about your facts you just move on to the next thread

Attack the post, not the poster please.

samsemtex

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Have you a source for that claim about R roads?

2. Please don't make such assumptions. Argue your own points on their own merits, preferably with reference to evidence, rather than on what you think I think.

No I dont have a source although I'm pretty sure one could be found. I can tell from the serious accidents I have seen and heard about that the majority of them seem to occur on R roads or at least National Secondary routes which often are no better in quality than R roads. I just looked up some recent news stories about serious accidents on RTE there and 5 out of the 6 fatal crashes reported on were not on National primary routes.

Again I see you fail to address any point I made. :rolleyes:

sh7289

I travel from Offaly to Maynooth regularly on the old road, and today as I was on the Enfield bypass, I noticed 2 speed camera signs. Are they up very recently, and does anyone know where the cameras might be, or is it just going to be a Gatso van area?

Thanks!

Iwannahurl

samsemtex wrote: »

No I dont have a source although I'm pretty sure one could be found. I can tell from the serious accidents I have seen and heard about that the majority of them seem to occur on R roads or at least National Secondary routes which often are no better in quality than R roads. I just looked up some recent news stories about serious accidents on RTE there and 5 out of the 6 fatal crashes reported on were not on National primary routes.

Again I see you fail to address any point I made. :rolleyes:

It's not difficult, though ultimately futile, to address points of that nature, as they are regularly repeated ad infinitum in this thread and elsewhere on Boards. Such arguments, IMO, are just forty shades of the same old bullsh:t. Speed limits are often too high on minor roads, therefore speed limits are often too low on major roads, therefore speed cameras are really a stealth tax not a road safety measure, therefore I resent being made to drive slower than I generally like to.

If you can point to any real data showing that the majority of fatal crashes occur on R roads then post the links here. Vague references to news reports amount to little more than a bottle of smoke.

samsemtex wrote: »

So there should be a 60kph limit every where there is a turn off to the left or right? That is pretty much every mile of every N road in the country in that case. And considering that road is straight and almost 3 times as wide as many N roads in the country that argument makes even less sense.

Are you asking a question or making an assumption? I don't know why the stretch of road you identified earlier has a 60 kph limit, nor am I drawing any universal conclusions based on it. Have you tried asking the local authority, since that's their responsibility? If you think there's a problem with that road link, what have you actually done to raise the issue with the competent authorities?

Your point (b) is not a valid reason. That is the problem we are talking about. Speed traps in inappropriate areas to generate cash. A speed limit should have logic and be there for safety reasons. That speed limit probably gets broken all the time and the main reason for that is that it is way too low. Its utterly inappropriate but its a cash cow. There is no danger there and it will not save a single life.

Speed limits have to be credible and appropriate, I agree. However, if the speed limit on a specific road is allegedly too low, then the appropriate response is to have it changed via the appropriate official process. I can't see how breaking the speed limit and risking a fine actually changes anything for the better. To do so once might be misfortune, to do so again would be stupidity IMO. Again, if you really believe there is a problem with the speed limit in this location, what have you actually done as a citizen to raise the issue with the relevant authorities? I don't believe that the main reason the speed limit gets broken is because it's too low. The speed limit is often broken all over this country, and in the most inappropriate places. 50 kph is the standard limit in built-up areas, and I know for a fact that, in my neighbourhood at least, a large number of motorists exceed it (some of them by 20 kph or even more). That does not mean the limit is too low. As for the saving of lives, we will have to wait until enough data have been gathered on the effects of the speed/safety camera programme.

If there is no danger and the purpose of these is to save lives and not make money, why is it there? Why isnt it somewhere that is residential/would save lives?

What criteria were used to set the speed limit at 60 kph on the road you identified earlier? Have you actually asked anyone who actually knows? Presumably the speed/safety camera is there because a problem of speeding has been identified. And yes, there should be much more speed surveillance in residential areas. Mind you, I would expect more complaining from motorists if it ever happens.

If these cameras were really about saving lives then they would almost exclusively be on R roads where the majority of fatal/serious crashes occur. From what i can see they are placed on dual carriage ways with low limits and wide N roads many of which have been bypassed since the last major accident on them.

I've dealt with this separately. Evidence please.

Since you think all that matters is the speed limit that is stated on the sign and nothing else, I assume you think this speed limit is correct and should be adhered to too?

Where have I said that?

http://www.aanewsletter.ie/edition/9/img/IMG_1325_10p.jpg

I have my own photos of inappropriate 80 kph speed limit signs, including one on a residential road where my child attends a creche. I have repeatedly lobbied my local council and AGS about such road safety issues. Have you done the same?

As no one is ever likely to get up to 80kph on this road, I assume it is impossible to drive dangerously on it?

Are you asking a question or making an assumption?

Bullseye1

There has been a red speed camera van on the stretch of road between the end if the Rathnew bypass and Jack Whites for the past couple of days even as late as 6.30pm (getting quite dark).

davejones572

I found out from a friend of friend kinda of thing, who knows a guy on the Gosafe vans was told it’s all run by the Garda and there just van drivers with a camera



Dave

Odysseus

Bullseye1 wrote: »

There has been a red speed camera van on the stretch of road between the end if the Rathnew bypass and Jack Whites for the past couple of days even as late as 6.30pm (getting quite dark).

I seen one in Louth at 20:30 last week, so the are really working later hours.

dougie-lampkin

I've seen one at 2 am. They seem to be a 24/7 jobby :pac:

Hotwheels

Odysseus wrote: »

I seen one in Louth at 20:30 last week, so the are really working later hours.

Try 4am near the N63 at Marless (out side moylough) I see they have a camera sign now in place there. And in place on the N63 near the Derreen Inn pub.

Just like Martini ad, (circa late 1970's) "Any Time, Any Place, Any Where"

Seth Brundle

Odysseus wrote: »

I seen one in Louth at 20:30 last week, so the are really working later hours.

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

I've seen one at 2 am. They seem to be a 24/7 jobby :pac:

Hotwheels wrote: »

Try 4am near the N63 at Marless (out side moylough) I see they have a camera sign now in place there. And in place on the N63 near the Derreen Inn pub.

from http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/FAQ%27S.pdf...

garda.ie wrote:

What times of day, days of the week, will they operate at?
The cameras will operate 24 hours, 7 days a week.

They don't seem to be keeping it a secret!

warder6161

Q 1 ; Was there a rule that these vans had to advertise they were operating on a stretch of road ?

Q.2 ; What are the rules governing this gosafe company surveying roads?

Spotted an unmarked van with camera onboard..i stopped asked the guy in the van what he was doing..he said he was just surveying the road on behalf of the gardai..i asked was he a garda he said no..when i questioned him another bit he said he worked for gosafe..asked him the above question he said the vans were clearly marked..what is to stop this company using the recordings from this unmarked van and say that they were recorded on a marked van..by the way this was parked on the approach road into buttevant from limerick where there are both a 60km and 50km limit within 50 yards of each other..they have been targeting this road for the last 6 weeks :mad:

Seth Brundle

warder6161 wrote: »

Q 1 ; Was there a rule that these vans had to advertise they were operating on a stretch of road ?

I doubt that there is a rule law - I would imagine that it was a policy that they brought in to get people on side
However, they do advertise all of the roads online.

warder6161 wrote: »

Q.2 ; What are the rules governing this gosafe company surveying roads?


Spotted an unmarked van with camera onboard..i stopped asked the guy in the van what he was doing..he said he was just surveying the road on behalf of the gardai..i asked was he a garda he said no..when i questioned him another bit he said he worked for gosafe..asked him the above question he said the vans were clearly marked..what is to stop this company using the recordings from this unmarked van and say that they were recorded on a marked van..by the way this was parked on the approach road into buttevant from limerick where there are both a 60km and 50km limit within 50 yards of each other..they have been targeting this road for the last 6 weeks :mad:

There are I presume no rules about how they are supposed to tart up the survey vans - again I'd say that its a policy for them to have the signs up.
If they are targeting that road then drive within the limit when (at least) passing the van. However, don't forget that there are garda vans also (no markings) and unmarked cars which also can record your speed!

warder6161

surely they cant use unmarked vans aswell as marked vans at the same time within a few km's of each other and they should at least inform/advertise/warn that there is surveying been carried out on the road..just think its all very underhand !:mad:

Seth Brundle

warder6161 wrote: »

surely they cant use unmarked vans aswell as marked vans at the same time within a few km's of each other

Why not? There is no law against it.
I've seen the gardai have two separate speed traps within a mile of each other.
However, why survey a road that they are currently targetting? Surely thje actual speed trap van is gathering enough survey results.

warder6161 wrote: »

they should at least inform/advertise/warn that there is surveying been carried out on the road..just think its all very underhand !:mad:

Again why?
A speed trap can occur on any road but you object to them surveying a road?