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

cyclopath2001

Wolverine_1999 wrote: »

However, I'm assuming (as I think I've heard previously) that these speeds were done on the motorway and seeing that the condition of these particular motorways is nearly better than the Autobahn (which has no limits), how can he consider it as suicidal?

Irish motorways might be better than some Autobahn, but those German roads usually don't have many Irish drivers on them.

JamesBond2010

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Irish motorways might be better than some Autobahn, but those German roads usually don't have many Irish drivers on them.

Paddy in his Fiat Seicento(Biscuit tin on Wheels) or mick in his Fork Ka!!!

Iwannahurl

Perhaps we need grind schools for Irish motorists, with specific emphasis on learning on to use roundabouts and motorways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfqYV-Jb8tw

JamesBond2010

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Perhaps we need grind schools for Irish motorists, with specific emphasis on learning on to use roundabouts and motorways.

Would never Work in this country, 2 many different styles of driver.Old to new. some roads are disgrace, while other perfect.So its easier on good condition roads rather than poor ones.(dublin has good roads outside dublin start to get crap).

D_murph

For all those that have bought the "safety camera", propaganda, here is a very interesting and quite frankly, more honest approach by the Australians to the whole thing...

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/consumer/article/-/10149679/video-speed-cameras

Note how many times they refer to revenue or cash etc, in that clip...

00:45: Money making machines.
1:20: The projected income based on tickets.
2:00: "Once rolled out, they will make the states consolidated cash registers ring".
2:42: "I reckon cops in every other state are salivating at the prospect of rolling out these guns and going to work with them at the roadside because the revenue potential is going to be phenomenal"
2:50: "The Trucam cameras are forecasted to reel in an extra $120million in their first year alone".
3:45: They throw in a fatal crash caused by someone in a stolen car that was already in a police pursuit to justify it all.

At least the Australians were honest about why speed cameras exist in that clip though.

cyclopath2001

It's possibly a win-win situation in Australia, if drivers speed, more money is collected. If they don't, the economy benefits from fewer crashes. But this ignores the human cost of each incident.

I think that its notable that the anti-safety camera lobby don't have any information sources relevant to Ireland. Recently, one poster was desperate enough to post links to articles in the 'Daily Mail'!

Surely an FOI request would settle the question as to whether or not the income from cameras exceeded the cost of operation?

monument

Sully wrote: »

Iv given my number a good few times when reporting dangerous driving and never hard nawt back. How do the Guards make the call as to when a statement should be taken?

It seems to depend on a wide range of things including how and who you report it too (traffic watch sometimes better than ringing stations, sometimes not), how busy they are, what their boss thinks, if they person you report admits anything or not etc

ART6 wrote: »

On a similar point, how many of us have been overtaken by someone who doesn't know what speed limits are only to find them the next car ahead at the traffic lights?

This happens all the time while cycling -- some drivers are desperate to get past you but you pass them out at the next junction.

Our man in Havana

Surely an FOI request would settle the question as to whether or not the income from cameras exceeded the cost of operation?

Not a chance in hell that info would be released.

cyclopath2001

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Not a chance in hell that info would be released.

Why not?

Maybe the anti-safety camera lobby could persuade a TD to table a Parliamentary Question in the Dail?

ironclaw

D_murph wrote: »

For all those that have bought the "safety camera", propaganda, here is a very interesting and quite frankly, more honest approach by the Australians to the whole thing...

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/consumer/article/-/10149679/video-speed-cameras

Note how many times they refer to revenue or cash etc, in that clip...

Interesting piece of kit, but its just a standard Ultralyte 20-20 (Which the Gardai use) with a video camera on board. Theres quite a few problems with it, chief amongst which is that you can't use it at night.

But on the note of the report, pretty good and pretty frank. There really is no arguing, these things are made to make money. Plain and simple.

JamesBond2010

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's possibly a win-win situation in Australia, if drivers speed, more money is collected. If they don't, the economy benefits from fewer crashes. But this ignores the human cost of each incident.

I think that its notable that the anti-safety camera lobby don't have any information sources relevant to Ireland. Recently, one poster was desperate enough to post links to articles in the 'Daily Mail'!

Surely an FOI request would settle the question as to whether or not the income from cameras exceeded the cost of operation?

it did not take u long to go back to old ways.

I was not desperate. i just showing they said in the uk about them!!

D_murph

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's possibly a win-win situation in Australia, if drivers speed, more money is collected. If they don't, the economy benefits from fewer crashes. But this ignores the human cost of each incident.

They just want the money, plain and simple and at last one country was honest about it.

I think that its notable that the anti-safetyspeed camera lobby don't have any information sources relevant to Ireland. Recently, one poster was desperate enough to post links to articles in the 'Daily Mail'!

FYP ^. They do not detect safety, they detect speed.

I have no doubt that it is the same in all countries though. The fact is that they had caught almost 100,000 people here by the end of June for speeding. Multiply that by 80 euros a pop and you have €8 million which is well on the way to at least paying for their operation if not a profit.

They were introduced when the last government was in power and we all know just how good they were at running things so this was an amazing monetary success for them by comparison :rolleyes:.

Surely an FOI request would settle the question as to whether or not the income from cameras exceeded the cost of operation?

I wouldnt hold my breath on that TBH. Either way, I seriously doubt we would be told the truth.

cyclopath2001

D_murph wrote: »

I have no doubt that it is the same in all countries though. The fact is that they had caught almost 100,000 people here by the end of June for speeding. Multiply that by 80 euros a pop and you have €8 million which is well on the way to at least paying for their operation

This a good start, but can we estimate the cost of operating the cameras - Vans, cameras, insurance, staff salaries?

Any net profit, of course, then goes towarsds funding emergency services.

-Chris-

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Any net profit, of course, then goes towarsds funding emergency services.

Does it? I hadn't heard that.

Any link?

purpleblaa

Just been reading the last few pages. Not sure why people have a problem with the speed cameras.
Saying the NCT is money making is silly. I do think the costs should be reduced, but overall it provides safer motoring. This is a good thing, no?
Speed cameras also cannot be considered money making. We've far too many road deaths here each year and if having these cameras saves lives then surely it's worth it.
If you don't wanna give money to the "schemers" then slow down and go the actualy speed limit.
Honestly don't see the big deal.

JamesBond2010

purpleblaa wrote: »

Just been reading the last few pages. Not sure why people have a problem with the speed cameras.
Saying the NCT is money making is silly. I do think the costs should be reduced, but overall it provides safer motoring. This is a good thing, no?
Speed cameras also cannot be considered money making. We've far too many road deaths here each year and if having these cameras saves lives then surely it's worth it.
If you don't wanna give money to the "schemers" then slow down and go the actualy speed limit.
Honestly don't see the big deal.

Note comment about Nct is Wrong u obviously never looked @ news a while back..
this thread about speed cameras not NCT...

scoobymunster

Was driving up along the North coast today behind a speedcamera van. Speed limit was 50mph, van was doing 60mph:eek:(and right behind him so was I:D)

JamesBond2010

scoobymunster wrote: »

Was driving up along the North coast today behind a speedcamera van. Speed limit was 50mph, van was doing 60mph:eek:(and right behind him so was I:D)

Tailgaiting u Were:p:p:D:D:D

D_murph

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This a good start, but can we estimate the cost of operating the cameras - Vans, cameras, insurance, staff salaries?

Any net profit, of course, then goes towarsds funding emergency services.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1112/breaking16.html

A five year contract costing 65 million euros would equal 13 million a year and they were more than half way to that target by the end of June.

I can only assume that Gosafe will be paying for all the vans, equipment and staff out of that though the insurance may have gone up after the events of the first few months :pac:.

All fines after that would be profit and I have not heard anywhere that they channel that towards anything in particular. Profit is profit though .

cyclopath2001

D_murph wrote: »

A five year contract costing 65 million euros would equal 13 million a year and they were more than half way to that target by the end of June.

It's been mentioned that there have been 100,000 speeding fines. How many of them are issued as a result of GoSafe activity and how many by Gardai?

BanzaiBk

Just in the door checking the post. Fixed penalty notice - damn....but...I was measured going 44kph in a 60kph zone. If I just ring them tomorrow will they sort it out?

Stinicker

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Just in the door checking the post. Fixed penalty notice - damn....but...I was measured going 44kph in a 60kph zone. If I just ring them tomorrow will they sort it out?

That was a fine for going too slow tut tut , Might be worth showing it to a Solitictor before contacting them incase you are giving them leeway to crucify you, eg. the might re-issue it showing you doing 66 in a 60 but if you didn't pay the fine and went to court with a fine for doing 44 in a 60 you'd probably win! Never them the opportunity to screw you twice!

BanzaiBk

Stinicker wrote: »

That was a fine for going too slow tut tut , Might be worth showing it to a Solitictor before contacting them incase you are giving them leeway to crucify you, eg. the might re-issue it showing you doing 66 in a 60 but if you didn't pay the fine and went to court with a fine for doing 44 in a 60 you'd probably win! Never them the opportunity to screw you twice!

Thanks I'll get on to the solicitor in the morning. The particular road it happened on is a series of bends and if it's the day I think it was it was quite wet so there's a chance I was only going 44kph. Very windy with heavy traffic, time of offence was 17.42pm.

Oral Surgeon

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Thanks I'll get on to the solicitor in the morning. The particular road it happened on is a series of bends and if it's the day I think it was it was quite wet so there's a chance I was only going 44kph. Very windy with heavy traffic, time of offence was 17.42pm.

I hope they throw the book at you, you maniac!!!!

ironclaw

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Just in the door checking the post. Fixed penalty notice - damn....but...I was measured going 44kph in a 60kph zone. If I just ring them tomorrow will they sort it out?

You sure it wasn't a special 30km/h zone? There was a thread here a while back about that. I'd be absolutely certain its a 60 zone before proceeding legally.

BanzaiBk

ironclaw wrote: »

You sure it wasn't a special 30km/h zone? There was a thread here a while back about that. I'd be absolutely certain its a 60 zone before proceeding legally.

It's a 60 alright, the solicitor confirmed it with someone/something. I was afraid it was a 50kph section or a 30kph zone but it's not. He'll contact me again on Monday to discuss it further.

ART6

ironclaw wrote: »

You sure it wasn't a special 30km/h zone? There was a thread here a while back about that. I'd be absolutely certain its a 60 zone before proceeding legally.

There certainly was a post about that some time ago, I think in this thread but I can't remember when. The reason the poster was fined was, apparently, that they had put up a temporary 30k speed limit in the place where the Gatso van was, while the rest of the road was a 60k limit. It was outside Waterford as far as I recall.

Our man in Havana

they had put up a temporary 30k speed limit

Did it have a proper order giving the limit legal force?

ART6

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Did it have a proper order giving the limit legal force?

No idea! I only read the post at the time, but I have to say I am increasingly cynical about things our public bodies do to wring a few more euros out of pockets.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This a good start, but can we estimate the cost of operating the cameras - Vans, cameras, insurance, staff salaries?

Any net profit, of course, then goes towarsds funding emergency services.

-Chris- wrote: »

Does it? I hadn't heard that.

Any link?

Have you found a link to back this up yet cyclopath?