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

-Corkie-

Going Forward wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/Global/Presentations/Supt%20Con%20O'Donohue's%20presentation.pdf

"Payment is on the basis of monitoring / survey hours
(not detections)"

This post should be stickied.. Thanks for clearing this up allthough the old warriors will still disagree with it..:rolleyes:

Reg'stoy

-Corkie- wrote: »

This post should be stickied.. Thanks for clearing this up allthough the old warriors will still disagree with it..:rolleyes:

Indeed there will be a deafening silence around here.

Although I can script the responces "Yeah they say that in public but in private......insert......Revenue Cameras......insert..... Fish in a barrel..... insert.....
safest road in Ireland..... insert ...... caught doing 51kph in a 50kph zone......"

Our man in Havana

Your point being?

You will be the same one whining Tuesday night.

Iwannahurl

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Your point being?

You will be the same one whining Tuesday night.

Your point being?

Our man in Havana

My point is that people in the "I love the government for keeping me safe" camp will be cursing them come the budget.

2 faced? I thinks so.

Iwannahurl

A very tenuous connection, IMO.

I expect public policy to be directed at making the roads as safe as can be feasibly achieved.

We've had a few severe budgets already, and there are more on the way after this year's spending cuts and tax increases.

I curse the austerity programme and the populist folly that made it inevitable. I also favour increased speed surveillance. Nothing two-faced about that at all.

JamesBond2010

Going Forward wrote: »

http://www.rsa.ie/Global/Presentations/Supt%20Con%20O'Donohue's%20presentation.pdf

"Payment is on the basis of monitoring / survey hours
(not detections)"

bull **** and ye are the type of ones that still believe that NCT is not corrupt & believe everything you read.

JamesBond2010

the know it alls are back again!! talking crap.

Iwannahurl

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

bull **** and ye are the type of ones that still believe that NCT is not corrupt & believe everything you read.

So what do you believe, and what reliable source(s) do you have for your alleged facts?

TestTransmission

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Your point being?

You will be the same one whining Tuesday night.

Our man in Havana wrote: »

My point is that people in the "I love the government for keeping me safe" camp will be cursing them come the budget.

2 faced? I thinks so.

Ease up, don't make it personal

JamesBond2010

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So what do you believe, and what reliable source(s) do you have for your alleged facts?

read the previous pages & Same argument again and again....here

there is some form of corruption in everything!!!




.

L1011

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Indeed there will be a deafening silence around here.

Although I can script the responces "Yeah they say that in public but in private......insert......Revenue Cameras......insert..... Fish in a barrel..... insert.....
safest road in Ireland..... insert ...... caught doing 51kph in a 50kph zone......"

GoSafe's lack of motivation to catch more people is completely irrelevant when it is not GoSafe who decided camera locations.

Camera locations are publicly stated to be devised from accident data, but comparing where cameras are to the raw data shows that the data is often ancient and frequently refers to a road which has been realigned or offline rebuilt.

Its quite clear that the camera locations are not being picked for actual safety reasons, so you need to draw conclusions on why they're being picked. GoSafe don't come in to this as they are purely an agent.

Reg'stoy

MYOB wrote: »

GoSafe's lack of motivation to catch more people is completely irrelevant when it is not GoSafe who decided camera locations.

Camera locations are publicly stated to be devised from accident data, but comparing where cameras are to the raw data shows that the data is often ancient and frequently refers to a road which has been realigned or offline rebuilt.

Its quite clear that the camera locations are not being picked for actual safety reasons, so you need to draw conclusions on why they're being picked. GoSafe don't come in to this as they are purely an agent.

Are you saying that their location is accidental as a result of old or incorrect data, and the money generated is a happy coincidence. Or are you saying that a member of the Gardai or a civil servant having appraised locations has decided on their location based on the likelihood of catching motorists in excess of the posted limits for reasons other than publicly stated.

The first scenario could, based on probability be plausible, but the second is, if that's what you meant; a conspiracy. By conspiracy I mean, you advocate that members of the Gardai or civil servants go against stated goverment policy and delibrately choose locations for their revenue generating.

The only snag with conspiracies is that because they involve people, they invariably fail due to leaks or documents falling into the wrong hands etc. I find it hard to believe that at no stage has a 'non member' of the conspirancy not come across some document entitled "best locations to catch ordinary law abiding motorists" and went; hang on those guys on that inter web thing were right and sent it into the Irish daily mail post haste.

Of course now that I've posted about goverment conspirancies (they do exist), I'm sure to be placed on some watch list.

Going Forward

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Are you saying that their location is accidental as a result of old or incorrect data, and the money generated is a happy coincidence. Or are you saying that a member of the Gardai or a civil servant having appraised locations has decided on their location based on the likelihood of catching motorists in excess of the posted limits for reasons other than publicly stated.

The first scenario could, based on probability be plausible, but the second is, if that's what you meant; a conspiracy. By conspiracy I mean, you advocate that members of the Gardai or civil servants go against stated goverment policy and delibrately choose locations for their revenue generating.

The only snag with conspiracies is that because they involve people, they invariably fail due to leaks or documents falling into the wrong hands etc. I find it hard to believe that at no stage has a 'non member' of the conspirancy not come across some document entitled "best locations to catch ordinary law abiding motorists" and went; hang on those guys on that inter web thing were right and sent it into the Irish daily mail post haste.

Of course now that I've posted about goverment conspirancies (they do exist), I'm sure to be placed on some watch list.

Confidentiality etc, is still respected and protected in the circles you speak of, naturally very little is ever going to be written ink!

As to the rationale of camera van placement:
If we can agree that a fatality has occurred on virtually every part of every main road since driving began in Ireland, therefore can the camera not be placed on any such spot on every road?

If the location coincidentally leads to a fish in the barrel scenario, well they're off the hook if they can show that one fatality has occured there, be it 2, or 62 years ago.

Then again, I have seen them placed inside urban limits where to the best of my knowledge no fatality has ever occurred.....

cyclopath2001

Going Forward wrote: »

Then again, I have seen them placed inside urban limits where to the best of my knowledge no fatality has ever occurred.....

86% of drivers drive in excess of the maximum permitted in urban areas.

cast_iron

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

86% of drivers drive in excess of the maximum permitted in urban areas.

I think you misread his point, which was about fatalities.

Going Forward

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

86% of drivers drive in excess of the maximum permitted in urban areas.

I dont doubt that, but I thought they were to be placed if not only, then, primarily on points on roads where fatal accidents have occurred? Maybe I'm wrong on that?

cyclopath2001

Going Forward wrote: »

I dont doubt that, but I thought they were to be placed if not only, then, primarily on points on roads where fatal accidents have occurred? Maybe I'm wrong on that?

It's illegal to exceed the speed limit on any road, regardless of whether or not there has been ever a fatal accident there.

You're simply grasping at straws looking for reasons why the authorities should not enforce the law.

Iwannahurl

Arguments against the locations of speed cameras are very hollow, IMO.

I know of one 50 km/h residential road where the speed limit is broken daily, quite possibly by a large majority of motorists. Speeds over 70 km/h are not uncommon. It's a residential road with several side roads into neighbouring estates, numerous driveway entrances on the road itself, bus stops, two access points to a retail park and local amenities attracting young families on foot. There are two creches and a primary school in the area. One side of the road has no footpath, and there are no pedestrian crossings or traffic calming features. It's also a connecting route used by cyclists.

No fatalities have occurred on this road since it opened about ten or twelve years ago, although there have been numerous collisions at one end, on a poorly laid out junction.

Is the absence of fatalities within, say, a dozen years a sound reason not to do speed surveillance on such a road? Absolutely not. Higher speed increases both the probability and severity of crashes, and that is reason enough in any location. Speeds up to 70 km/h and beyond on a residential 50 km/h road increase both the actual risk and the perception of risk, which makes residents nervous for themselves and especially their children and/or elderly relatives. That in itself also justifies rigorous speed enforcement, IMO.

I wouldn't doubt that if speeders on this particular road were subjected to surveillance, and a bunch of them were caught and fined, quite a few would resent the enforcement and make the usual complaints about stealth taxes, real criminals and fish in a barrel. IMO, resentment about alleged misuse of speed cameras is really just the disgruntlement of motorists who believe they have some sort of natural and superior right to drive fast whenever and wherever they choose, often because they drive a vehicle that makes driving fast enjoyable. Many of them also don't really know or care how fast they are driving, which is why they need to be prodded into awareness as often as possible.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's illegal to exceed the speed limit on any road, regardless of whether or not there has been ever a fatal accident there.

You're simply grasping at straws looking for reasons why the authorities should not enforce the law.

If someone comes into an A&E department with a severe laceration on one arm from which they are losing lots of blood, and a small cut on the other arm which is barely bleeding at all, which arm do you think the doctor should try to fix first.

robbie_998

Just on the van locations there.

If I see any of these vans (dont care what ones their are) on the M50 or M1 or any M road then I will be calling that road operator and the gardai to inform them of a van illegally parked on a hard shoulder NOT broken down.


I'm sure if anyone spends more the 10mibs on a hard shoulder you get hounded by gardai for being there.

It's illegal and that's that !

Our man in Havana

It's illegal and that's that !

Oh is it now? Care to point that one out to me?

robbie_998

Our man in Havana wrote: »

It's illegal and that's that !

Oh is it now? Care to point that one out to me?

It's hardly an emergency for them to park on a hard shoulder just to point a camera out the window.

Rsa ad on radio said its illegal to be in the hard shoulder on a motorway unless you have genuinely broken down or ran out of fuel.

I'm sure if you parked on the motorway hard shoulder for 5 minuetes you'd have gardai at ya asking what's going on.

Plus it is a silly place for them to be as the MAJORITY of people of motorways don't break the limit as they feel their going fast enough anyway.

Very rare youd get someone doing a mad speed.

Unless boy racers but won't go into that.

JamesBond2010

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Oh is it now? Care to point that one out to me?

Go-safe are civilian operated & so are not allowed to park on the motorway.The only people allowed to park on the,motorway are emergency services.You can get 1 penalty point for driving on a,motorway hard shoulder. I will give proof l8r on when I am back @ station..



Parking on the hard shoulder is only permitted in the event of a breakdown or medical emergency, driving on the hard shoulder will incur one penalty point and an €80 fine.

Kind Regards.

Duty Sergeant
Garda Press Office

dr.fuzzenstein

All arguments aside, I think the cameras won't be going away anytime soon.
I still think the argument "As soon as you stray 1 km/h over the posted speed limit, you will crash and burn in a fireball into a creche and kill 17 babies!" is a lot of horseradish, but if you're of the persuasion that the law has to be applied blindly and without thinking, nothing will convince that person otherwise. Some of these people are simply civilian sympathizers, others can only be called henchmen. Others are only in it for the money, but they wouldn't hire me, the so and so's.
I'm lucky in my area, that I know the 5 locations where cameras are to be found, so in the morning, on an empty motorway I can put the foot down safely and so far, since the introduction of the cameras, I haven't been caught yet.
I think it's a bit like the NCT, a lot worse than it sounds. Unless my car fails next Saturday, then it'll be The Worst Thing Ever!;)

robbie_998

I think your cameras are grand for catching out boy racers and the likes.


And the other one that annoys me most "ah sure be grand"

The limit is there for a reason.... You can't deciede how fast you want to go or what you think it should be and these people can only learn the hard way

JamesBond2010

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

All arguments aside, I think the cameras won't be going away anytime soon.

I think it's a bit like the NCT, a lot worse than it sounds. Unless my car fails next Saturday, then it'll be The Worst Thing Ever!;)

the auld 50e magic trick still works. Car goes in 50e in tray. Car comes out.
Abera Kedabera The 50e dissapears!!!:eek::eek::D:D

cyclopath2001

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

If someone comes into an A&E department with a severe laceration on one arm from which they are losing lots of blood, and a small cut on the other arm which is barely bleeding at all, which arm do you think the doctor should try to fix first.

Fatal accidents can happen anywhere people behave unsafely.

SeanW

Fatal accidents can happen anywhere people behave unsafely.

Indeed. But define "unsafely" (sic).

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's illegal to exceed the speed limit on any road, regardless of whether or not there has been ever a fatal accident there.

You're simply grasping at straws looking for reasons why the authorities should not enforce the law.

You seem to have an absolute "Black and White" view of speed limits as law. Like that Type 1 HQDC connecting Ennis to the N18 with a 50kph limit, any evil motorist who would dare to drive it at a safe, but higher speed (say, 55kph) is a vile scumbag who should hunted down and made PAY!

I wonder if you feel the same way about ALL other laws, for example, cyclists running red lights, and cycling on footpaths.

In fact I don't think so because your name includes the term cyclopath, which is a known term for cycling hyper-agressive fashion, and I once saw the term being used specifically to describe cyclists who cycle on footpaths.

Imagine if I had a username that said "Idrive60mphThruSchools" and proceeded to lecture you on obeying the law. Do you think you'd have a problem with that? I think you would, and you would be right.

JamesBond2010

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

86% of drivers drive in excess of the maximum permitted in urban areas.

dont forget where is the stats for this or are they just made up???