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

formatman

Apologies if this has been asked before

Do the White Vans with the Garda Logo scan traffic coming towards the front of the Van , on the slip road to a motorway

The Cherrywood one is the one in question , driving up past the Dell Roundabout with intention to drive northbound VAN is on the opposite side etc

pa990

d-don wrote: »

well the garda layed out the rules and it shows on their website.. i'll be happy to play it in court .. even if she was speeding based on the GARDA website...:D law n all that lark

But they were talking about the launch of GoSafe vans, they were discussing the location of GoSafe vans and the operating of GoSafe vans.
not Garda Robot vans


anyway, best of luck in court, let us know how it works out and all that lark.

savagecabbages

d-don wrote: »

This was one of these vans that she was flashed by... also on the location page of where the vans are placed.. nothing was down for that area..

Did it actually flash? Or is that a figure of speech??
If it did flash then its likely a Garda van which has free reign to catch people throughout the whole country, not just the Gosafe zones on the website...
Gosafe vans don't have any flash.
Garda vans do.

Seth Brundle

d-don wrote: »

well the garda layed out the rules and it shows on their website.. i'll be happy to play it in court .. even if she was speeding based on the GARDA website...:D law n all that lark

Can you point out where exactly the specific law is written on the garda website as you will need this when in court!
Also FYI, the gardai don't lay out the "rules", they follow them!

By all means go to court but do let your gf know that she is likely to receive bonus points for you wasting of the courts time.

Dusty87

Folks,
was driving into my local town last night for bread milk etc and seen a speed van facing the opposite direction. On the way out (80 zone) i kept my speed at 70-80kph (as i knew the van was there).
About 200yards from the van, a spotlight came on from the roof and stayed on until i was about 100yards from it. Knowing the van was there i had kept the speedo constantly below 50mph. Is this a common occurrance at night? Is it just simply reading the speed or what?

med1

some garda gatsos have a garda crest and writing on them
there is one which parks up unmarked in town at night nearly crashed when flash went of on me blinding me about 1 meter from back of van on parnell square hadnt noticed i had gone over the dreaded 30kmph speed

TheZ

Garda van in donnybrook village (heading out of town) tonight about 11
I think that's a 50 km/h zone
It had Garda crest, white van with camera in back window - do those cameras flash if you are over limit?

ironclaw

TheZ wrote: »

Garda van in donnybrook village (heading out of town) tonight about 11
I think that's a 50 km/h zone
It had Garda crest, white van with camera in back window - do those cameras flash if you are over limit?

Actually went passed that myself. Always there.

It does flash but do not take a flash or no flash as a way to determine if you've been caught. It could be visible or IR flash.

ironclaw

Dusty87 wrote: »

About 200yards from the van, a spotlight came on from the roof and stayed on until i was about 100yards from it.

Without a shadow or a doubt, not a speed van.

meercat

ironclaw wrote: »

Without a shadow or a doubt, not a speed van.

sorry to disagree iron claw
i have seen one outside ardee with spotlight on the rere
think it was just using spotlight to set up and get into position
im 100% sure

JMSE

Our man in Havana wrote: »

For the nth time, YES!

Thats nuts Havanaman, why are you pee'd. Are you expecting folks who think they might have been zapped and find their way onto here, are you expecting them to read through 158 pages of blahdy blah blah? If so then maybe an alternative thread for quick questions and answers should be started.

Discussion forum versus encyclopedia.

-Chris-

JMSE wrote: »

Thats nuts Havanaman, why are you pee'd. Are you expecting folks who think they might have been zapped and find their way onto here, are you expecting them to read through 158 pages of blahdy blah blah? If so then maybe an alternative thread for quick questions and answers should be started.

Discussion forum versus encyclopedia.

I'm sure if you read the first 5 pages and the last 5 pages before posting (in any Megathread), you'd probably find your question answered. Probably repeatedly.

ironclaw

meercat wrote: »

sorry to disagree iron claw
i have seen one outside ardee with spotlight on the rere
think it was just using spotlight to set up and get into position
im 100% sure

Sorry, jumped the gun because you said Garda van. Pretty sure the Garda don't have spot lights but now that you mention it, GoSafe probably do as they have a set up procedure before they get underway.

JamesBond2010

1 million € a month, safe is supposed to be making. It was in todays papers. :cool:

-Chris-

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

1 million € a month, safe is supposed to be making. It was in todays papers. :cool:

Link?

vetstu

-Chris- wrote: »

Link?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/private-cameras-catch-40pc-more-motorists-speeding-2945811.html

And another article with RSA pr makey up statistics in it
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gosafe-road-network-saving-lives-and-money-2945799.html

Absolutely nothing to do with less cars/lorries on the road. Its all due to the vans

-Chris-

So it looks like they're nearly revenue-neutral at this stage.

Surely that's not a bad thing?

cyclopath2001

-Chris- wrote: »

So it looks like they're nearly revenue-neutral at this stage.

Surely that's not a bad thing?

That's a an awful lot of people detected breaking road safety laws and getting away with it by paying small fines. Maybe the penalties need to be harsher?

cyclopath2001

-Chris- wrote: »

So it looks like they're nearly revenue-neutral at this stage.

Surely that's not a bad thing?

That's a an awful lot of people detected breaking road safety laws and getting away with it by paying small fines. Maybe the penalties need to be harsher?

Or put it another way: 86% of drivers break the speed limit and only 100,000 caught.

-Chris-

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's a an awful lot of people detected breaking road safety laws and getting away with it by paying small fines. Maybe the penalties need to be harsher?

Or put it another way: 86% of drivers break the speed limit and only 100,000 caught.

But I thought it was about speed detection and safety, not revenue generation?

What this says to me is the penalties are perfectly set, but they need more vans or more survey hours to increase the numbers of people "dissuaded from exceeding the speedlimit".

Getting the system to be profitable, and increasing fines to cover costs, is surely completely against the whole Safety agenda that the defenders of this system believe in.

Surely the measure of success is not how much money it raises, or the absolute number of drivers who are caught, rather how many lives are saved on our roads (what do the statistics look like this year anyway?).

It nearly sounds like you want these cameras to generate more revenue, rather than increase safety...

ironclaw

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's a an awful lot of people detected breaking road safety laws and getting away with it by paying small fines. Maybe the penalties need to be harsher?

I'd view this another way. Most of the locations are at the lower end of the speed spectrum e.g. 60 and 80km/h roads, even as low as 30km/h (Garda vans on the Quays - I know they aren't part of the figures above, but just as an example)

Everyone knows how difficult it can be to keep to a 50, let alone a 30km/h limit, within reason, so what I'd really want to see is how many people were caught and what was the average break above the limit. If we have 100,000 fines for doing 58 in a 50, then thats not progress in my eyes, its nit picking. Same would apply for 110 in a 100 (Heavens forbid on a arrow straight road) I'd rather see the money with traffic core dealing with no tax and insurance and improvement in ANPR.

Harsher penalties should apply for those in gross excess of the limit in my eyes e.g. 80+ in a 50 etc.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

I'd view this another way. Most of the locations are at the lower end of the speed spectrum e.g. 60 and 80km/h roads, even as low as 30km/h (Garda vans on the Quays - I know they aren't part of the figures above, but just as an example)

Everyone knows how difficult it can be to keep to a 50, let alone a 30km/h limit, within reason, so what I'd really want to see is how many people were caught and what was the average break above the limit. If we have 100,000 fines for doing 58 in a 50, then thats not progress in my eyes, its nit picking. Same would apply for 110 in a 100 (Heavens forbid on a arrow straight road) I'd rather see the money with traffic core dealing with no tax and insurance and improvement in ANPR.

Harsher penalties should apply for those in gross excess of the limit in my eyes e.g. 80+ in a 50 etc.

I'm not sure what you're getting at re the claim that "everyone knows" how difficult it is to stay under 50 km/h when required. For example, the many motorists driving at 60-80 km/h on our local 50 km/h residential road are doing so because they're careless and irresponsible, IMO, not because there's an inherent difficulty in staying at or below 50. BTW, they're also doing it because enforcement is non-existent.

It's easy to dismiss 58 versus 50 as a trivial difference, but the reality is that both the risk of a crash and the severity of any collision increase exponentially with higher speed.

If hit by a vehicle at 50 km/h, a pedestrian has less than a 40 per cent chance of being killed. At 60 km/h a pedestrian has a 70 per cent chance of being killed. (Source: http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/papers/vic50.pdf)

I wish people would remember these important facts first, rather than complaining (with no sense of irony) that rigorous speed enforcement is "nit picking".

ironclaw

Iwannahurl wrote: »

//Usual Troll Rubbish

Having spent the previous 3 and the next 2 years in Degree / Masters Engineering, I don't need an internet troll quoting me physic's.

jimmynokia

-Chris- wrote: »

Link?

licence to print money in other words

-Chris-

jimmynokia wrote: »

licence to print money in other words

How so?

It costs €13m per year, and is currently making €12m per year.

jimmynokia

-Chris- wrote: »

How so?

It costs €13m per year, and is currently making €12m per year.

how are they MAKING 1 MILLION a month then?

and where is the conclusive evidence it costs 13 million a year?


not getting into an argument but you cant pin point an exact figure per annum,same as they cant catch the exact amount of drivers per month.

So if for example no body was caught speeding at all it would be a non runner operation?

If figures dropped would the company close down ie non sustainable.
IN the same report it said gardai caught 150,000
where go-safe only caught 100,000.

-Chris-

jimmynokia wrote: »

how are they MAKING 1 MILLION a month then?

and where is the conclusive evidence it costs 13 million a year?


not getting into an argument but you cant pin point an exact figure per annum,same as they cant catch the exact amount of drivers per month.

My figures are from Vetstu's link, I presume they've been verified to the same extent as the figures in the article you posted.

They don't say making, they say "revenue".

jimmynokia wrote: »

So if for example no body was caught speeding at all it would be a non runner operation?

I would expect so, because that would imply that no one was breaking the law and therefore enforcement is unnecessary.

jimmynokia wrote: »

If figures dropped would the company close down ie non sustainable.

The figures dropping shows the enforcement is working, and therefore probably more sustainable.

jimmynokia

The figures dropping shows the enforcement is working, and therefore probably more sustainable.



so what your saying there is the taxpayer would be forking out on another loss making goverment backed company?
thats great..

-Chris-

jimmynokia wrote: »

so what your saying there is the taxpayer would be forking out on another loss making goverment backed company?
thats great..

Because the Gardai, hospitals, schools etc. etc are all profit making?

jimmynokia

-Chris- wrote: »

Because the Gardai, hospitals, schools etc. etc are all profit making?

thats not answering my question,given the current status of our finances do you think its right to put money into the go safe operation if figures drop substantially and its deemed a loss making company.
currently its costing us 1 million a year so its already a loss making company,and we are paying for it.


just to add garda hospitals and schools are frontline operations go safe aint.