Speed cameras in Ireland - a guide

cabledude

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm subject to precisely the same speed surveillance technology as the people who have received points and fines, yet I have received neither points nor fines. The same goes for the thousands of motorists who have never received a ticket.

Why do you suppose that is?

Would you go to a petrol station that does not have its pumps calibrated by the NSAI?

Or buy meat in a butchers that does not calibrate its scales?

Damien360

cabledude wrote: »

Would you go to a petrol station that does not have its pumps calibrated by the NSAI?

Or buy meat in a butchers that does not calibrate its scales?

This is the level of silly calibration that has cost the Pharma industry so much. I worked in a lab with a manager that took this too far. We had to send away 30cm steel rulers for yearly calibration. We had a clock on the wall and once she realised we could be using it to time a test, she had it off the wall and sent for calibration.

Tesco calibrate their scales on the self service checkout for the purpose of stock check and checking you are not robbing of course but a scales in a butcher will be close enough and the scales in tesco for the fruit and veg will be close enough.

The NSAI do not calibrate a fuel pump. They certify the company doing it to say they are doing it correctly. That company can then put the NSAI logo on their stickers and letterheads.

Damien360

cabledude wrote: »

No need to check the calibration. When calibrated, the cal lab will just put a cal sticker on the unit. This is what happens in Industry. No reason why it cannot be done in the context of radar guns.

No, a calibration company checks the output vs another calibrated unit. This will have been checked against another and the ultimate device (the reference) will be in a place like the NSAI. It is very any company can or will adjust. It is dumped if it fails. The sticker just says, this was checked.

cabledude

Damien360 wrote: »

No, a calibration company checks the output vs another calibrated unit

We'll call this the working standard/reference then.

This will have been checked against another and the ultimate device (the reference) will be in a place like the NSAI

For the craic, we'll call this instrument the secondary working standard/reference.

It is dumped if it fails.

Fine.

The sticker just says, this was checked.

And passed. If a radar gun was tested against a working standard and passed, great. If it was tested and shown to be outside of tolerance, then there is a problem.

We are not dealing with lbs. of mince here or litres of petrol. We are talking about peoples driving licences.

gman2k

Primetime right now blowing the lid on privately operated speed cameras!
Whistleblower from Gosafe....

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

pa990

Watch it here

http://www.rte.ie/player/show/10268884

Cantona's Collars

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What did people expect from a private company that sets quotas for revenue & when they aren't met the government chips in to make up the shortfall.

Now to get the 2 points revoked for allegedly doing 60kph in a 50kph zone.:P

Iwannahurl

cabledude wrote: »

Would you go to a petrol station that does not have its pumps calibrated by the NSAI?

Or buy meat in a butchers that does not calibrate its scales?

Not comparable, imo. In such situations, everyone is affected equally. My contention is that the biggest complainers about speed camera calibration are those who resent the very existence of speed surveillance, and who want to drive at whatever speed they choose without worrying about getting caught. I'm not unduly bothered about such things, because it's highly unlikely that I'll be done for speeding.

Or at least I wasn't bothered, until this morning when I heard about last night's Primetime report on the GoSafe whistleblower. That's all we need right now: another piece of rot in the body politic. It will be interesting to see whether this is a widespread issue, or an isolated problem. Solicitor Evan O'Dwyer was on RTE Radio 1 this morning attempting to cast doubt on the entire system.

ironclaw

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Not comparable, imo. In such situations, everyone is affected equally. My contention is that the biggest complainers about speed camera calibration are those who resent the very existence of speed surveillance, and who want to drive at whatever speed they choose without worrying about getting caught.

I drive at the limits and within the limits every day of my life. And any mis-calibration does affect everyone equally. It certainly affects those that sensibly and correctly drive at the limits (All things considered e.g. Weather, road condition etc. I'm talking the 'general' case)

Take my example, of a machine adding or reading 5km/h more. In a 50km/h zone, if road conditions allow, I'll be doing 50km/h on the nose. Most people would be. It would be rare for anyone to be doing considerably under in that circumstance. But we'll all get done for doing 55km/h.

Same on the motorway. I'll be doing 120km/h on the nose, why should I be done for 125km/h when I wasn't? And don't bring Garda discretion / 'your allowed X km/h over' because thats exactly it, discretion. Nothing more. As the law currently stands, I can point a laser gun at someone (Doesn't have to be on, working or even a laser gun) and say 'You were speeding' and there is nothing you can do about it.

And then they say 'Well, just prove you weren't' and I say how? I can't contest the machine and my DVR would be inadmissible in court. Even the blackbox system we have in some of the cars wouldn't be allowed, and its encrypted and hashed data.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

Take my example, of a machine adding or reading 5km/h more. In a 50km/h zone, if road conditions allow, I'll be doing 50km/h on the nose. Most people would be. It would be rare for anyone to be doing considerably under in that circumstance. But we'll all get done for doing 55km/h.

Except we won't. These discussions invariably go round in circles, so I have to point out again that only 1 in 20 speeding detections is in the "5-9 km/h over" category. Last year around 94% of speeding offences recorded by AGS were for speeds 10 km/h or more above the limit.

Arguments about calibration are about one thing and one thing only: motorists wanting to break the speed limit and get away with it.

ironclaw

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Except we won't. These discussions invariably go round in circles, so I have to point out again that only 1 in 20 speeding detections are 5-9 km/h category. Last year around 94% of speeding offences recorded by AGS were for speeds 10 km/h or more above the limit.

Arguments about calibration are about one thing and one thing only: motorists wanting to break the speed limit and get away with it.

You do realise that those statistics are completely skewed if the equipment used to make them is itself uncalibrated? I've yet to find a scientific method for statistics that allows you to use uncalibrated measurement equipment. If the equipment was off by 5 to 9km/h (An entirely reasonable amount to drift) then the statistic you quoted would itself be off.

And if all arguments for calibration are about 'getting away with it' why in the US and more European countries is calibration mandatory, to the extent where the serial of the device use is included on your ticket? Arguments for calibration are to promote fairness and equality.

And anyway, the Garda twitter page posted two pics recently of 180km/h readings, however they neglected to mention that they were taken at 350m+ Now, I know some good shots, but I know no one would could make a 380 yard shot onto the license plate of a moving car without zoom optics. The laser is also 3ft wide at 1000ft (305m) There is also a whole host of tests that are recommended by TeleTraffic (The makers) but I doubt they are conducted e.g. Fixed Distance, Scope alignment.

Utter nonsense and as motorists we just accept this.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

And if all arguments for calibration are about 'getting away with it' why in the US and more European countries is calibration mandatory, to the extent where the serial of the device use is included on your ticket?

Arguments for calibration are to promote fairness and equality.

Utter nonsense and as motorists we just accept this.

As a motorist I have no issue with the system (though I'm reserving judgment on the latest Primetime exposé).

I don't know what the situation in the EU is, but my hunch is that in the US (where there's a lot of nonsense about speed and speed limits) the use of serial numbers etc may well be a political or administrative measure to satisfy dissenters and frustrate clever lawyers.

If motorists are so concerned about fairness, I suggest they start by always driving at a legal and appropriate speed, which has the simultaneous benefit of avoiding fines and penalty points while promoting road safety. It's only fair after all, especially when it comes to the safety of vulnerable road users.

keithclancy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As a motorist I have no issue with the system (though I'm reserving judgment on the latest Primetime exposé).

I don't know what the situation in the EU is, but my hunch is that in the US (where there's a lot of nonsense about speed and speed limits) the use of serial numbers etc may well be a political or administrative measure to satisfy dissenters and frustrate clever lawyers.

If motorists are so concerned about fairness, I suggest they start by always driving at a legal and appropriate speed, which has the simultaneous benefit of avoiding fines and penalty points while promoting road safety. It's only fair after all, especially when it comes to the safety of vulnerable road users.

I agree with everything except the 'legal' bit.

cabledude

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Except we won't. These discussions invariably go round in circles, so I have to point out again that only 1 in 20 speeding detections is in the "5-9 km/h over" category. Last year around 94% of speeding offences recorded by AGS were for speeds 10 km/h or more above the limit.

Arguments about calibration are about one thing and one thing only: motorists wanting to break the speed limit and get away with it.

No. Its about the integrity of the system. A blind man on a galloping horse would see that.


I have no points on my licence. It's been years since I had. For someone going 20kmph over the limit, the are caught fair and square. But if someone if marginal, and the machine being used in poorly calibrated or not at all, this is a problem. People could be receiving fines and points unjustly.

cabledude

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As a motorist I have no issue with the system (though I'm reserving judgment on the latest Primetime exposé).

I don't know what the situation in the EU is, but my hunch is that in the US (where there's a lot of nonsense about speed and speed limits) the use of serial numbers etc may well be a political or administrative measure to satisfy dissenters and frustrate clever lawyers.

If motorists are so concerned about fairness, I suggest they start by always driving at a legal and appropriate speed, which has the simultaneous benefit of avoiding fines and penalty points while promoting road safety. It's only fair after all, especially when it comes to the safety of vulnerable road users.

You should.......

norrie rugger

Are the private vans allowed to use the "Garda Only" slips on a motorway?

I have also seen them utilising parking, off road, in private entrance-ways. Are they allowed to be on private grounds and collecting evidence (without owner's permission)?

For note: I have no points and none pending, I am not trying to find a way out of points

ironclaw

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If motorists are so concerned about fairness, I suggest they start by always driving at a legal and appropriate speed, which has the simultaneous benefit of avoiding fines and penalty points while promoting road safety. It's only fair after all, especially when it comes to the safety of vulnerable road users.

I drive at a legal and appropriate speed but currently its your word against a Garda, and that isn't going to end well in court. Its a completely unchallengeable system. Imagine you couldn't appeal your income tax because the only calculator you could use was supplied by Revenue? And whatever it said was the final line. Tough luck if you were overcharged.

I'm currently trying to set up an experiment (Equipment pending) to show its possible for me to receive points and a fine whilst driving at a 'legal and appropriate speed' Its frightfully easy to throw a guns calibration out.

Damien360

ironclaw wrote: »

I'm currently trying to set up an experiment (Equipment pending) to show its possible for me to receive points and a fine whilst driving at a 'legal and appropriate speed' Its frightfully easy to throw a guns calibration out.

Is this test with a Laser gun ? Are you basing it on this programme.

Iwannahurl

cabledude wrote: »

No. Its about the integrity of the system. A blind man on a galloping horse would see that.

I have no points on my licence. It's been years since I had. For someone going 20kmph over the limit, the are caught fair and square. But if someone if marginal, and the machine being used in poorly calibrated or not at all, this is a problem. People could be receiving fines and points unjustly.

There are far more people getting away with speeding than are being caught.

Presumably the calibration issue (if there is one) works both ways, ie an uncalibrated speed camera will have both false positives and false negatives.

Or are people claiming that the speed cameras are set up in such a way that they always read too high?

On that last note, did anyone spot the flaw in the Primetime report?

Damien360

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Presumably the calibration issue (if there is one) works both ways, ie an uncalibrated speed camera will have both false positives and false negatives.

Or are people claiming that the speed cameras are set up in such a way that they always read too high?

Very good. That leads back to the question, is there an amount by which you must be over the limit to get in trouble. If not written, is there an informal basis for this used by garda. 10% or 5% or 10kmph over

ironclaw

Damien360 wrote: »

Is this test with a Laser gun ? Are you basing it on this programme.

No, we're basing it far beyond Cosine Error etc. Nothing confirmed yet. Its a hypothesis. The problem is getting equipment, time and a location.

There are far more people getting away with speeding than are being caught.

Thats an subjective opinion and one I wouldn't share.

Presumably the calibration issue (if there is one) works both ways, ie an uncalibrated speed camera will have both false positives and false negatives.

There is no issue on a false negative. Thats their problem. But a false positive is your problem and an unjust one at that.

Or are people claiming that the speed cameras are set up in such a way that they always read too high?

No one ever claimed that. A speed camera or device should be dead accurate or within a minuscule tolerance (Like, less than 1%) My argument is:

• Devices aren't calibrated or if they are, proof cannot be obtained. As such, your relying on a device absolutely with no stop check or balance.
  
• Device or operator can't be challenged in court.
  
• There's basically no onus on the Garda to prove you were speeding beyond his word and his reliance on a device they probably doesn't fully understand.
  
• Theres no requirement for anyone to prove the equipment is in full working order.

Net result, your word against theirs. And the only person that loses out is the unfortunate motorist with fines, points and insurance hikes. Thats unjust in society. No one should be infallible or unquestionable.

Going to watch Prime Time now and I'll report back.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

woejus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

feckers, they always have a tin of glee handy

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are far more people getting away with speeding than are being caught.

ironclaw wrote: »

Thats an subjective opinion and one I wouldn't share.

Have you any facts indicating the opposite, or any data that would suggest that your own subjective opinion has any validity?

For instance, according to the RSA's 2011 survey of free speed, "on average, 3 out of 5 motorists exceeded the posted speed limit in urban areas" and "the percentage of cars exceeding the speed limit on [50 km/h] urban arterial roads ... increased from 68% in 2009 to 77% in 2011."

Are you claiming that a majority of that majority are regularly caught for speeding? If so, evidence please.

ironclaw wrote: »

There is no issue on a false negative. Thats their problem. But a false positive is your problem and an unjust one at that.

Which is the point I was making earlier. The people complaining about alleged calibration issues are not worried about false negatives letting motorists get away with speeding. They're looking for a loophole that allows them to claim they weren't speeding when in fact they were.

In my view, all these attempts to cast doubt on the process are motivated by resentment of speed surveillance, whether for personal or ideological reasons. It reminds me of the battle to control smoking. A tobacco company executive once said that "doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public." It's a familiar tactic: try to create controversy wherever possible, in the hope that it will undermine public policy.

blackwhite

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Which is the point I was making earlier. The people complaining about alleged calibration issues are not worried about false negatives letting motorists get away with speeding. They're looking for a loophole that allows them to claim they weren't speeding when in fact they were.

I assume you have evidence to back this up? Or are you a mind-reader?

As far as I can see, anyone complaining here about potential calibration issues is more concerned about being accused in the wrong, and having no defence if/when falsely accused.

ironclaw

blackwhite wrote: »

I assume you have evidence to back this up? Or are you a mind-reader?

As far as I can see, anyone complaining here about potential calibration issues is more concerned about being accused in the wrong, and having no defence if/when falsely accused.

The way I see it is this. If I owed a gold mine and sold gold by the 100kg. If someone came back to me and said 'You only sold me 99kg' I'd want to be damn sure I could say 'Well, here is the calibration certificate, the certification of the person who did it and the date it was done' There is absolutely no grey area because of independent checks and balances. If I sold 101kg of gold and was making a loss, then thats my fault and I'm the one accountable. If I was the one doing the checks and calibration, then thats not transparent and I'd be fully expect to end up in court, and lose.

Its not about people getting away with it. Its about a clear and accountable case for everyone involved.

Damien360

ironclaw wrote: »

The way I see it is this. If I owed a gold mine and sold gold by the 100kg. If someone came back to me and said 'You only sold me 99kg' I'd want to be damn sure I could say 'Well, here is the calibration certificate, the certification of the person who did it and the date it was done' There is absolutely no grey area because of independent checks and balances. If I sold 101kg of gold and was making a loss, then thats my fault and I'm the one accountable. If I was the one doing the checks and calibration, then thats not transparent and I'd be fully expect to end up in court, and lose.

Its not about people getting away with it. Its about a clear and accountable case for everyone involved.

What would be an acceptable level of error ? Every device has some level of error. Could a +/-10% speed be allowed by the user and catch that error. The more accuracy that is demanded, the higher the cost.

Has anyone got the technical specifications for the device used ? That would have to state the error.

ironclaw

Damien360 wrote: »

What would be an acceptable level of error ? Every device has some level of error. Could a +/-10% speed be allowed by the user and catch that error. The more accuracy that is demanded, the higher the cost.

Has anyone got the technical specifications for the device used ? That would have to state the error.

The laser gun in use is phenomenally accurate. Less than 1%. But again its not about the accuracy. Its about the ability for someone to say in court:

"This laser gun / GoSafe van with serial X was calibrated on Y by Z and is accurate to within B%. Given the defendants speed in area Q on the Jth of U, the defendant is guilty / not guilty'

As opposed to now where its literally:

"You were speeding because I say so. Pay the fine"

mikeecho

Damien360 wrote: »

What would be an acceptable level of error ? Every device has some level of error. Could a +/-10% speed be allowed by the user and catch that error. The more accuracy that is demanded, the higher the cost.

Has anyone got the technical specifications for the device used ? That would have to state the error.

here you go

GoSafe vans

SPECIFICATIONS
Technology CW Doppler Radar


Frequency K-band 24GHz (see option 1)
Beam Width (HPBW) Horizontal 4.5 degrees Vertical 15 degrees
Radiated Power <100mW eirp
Mounting Flange Fixings or Tripod mount
Mounting Height 1 - 3.5m nominal
Measurement Angle In the range 22 degrees
Speed Detection Range 20 - 300 Km/Hr
Displacement Distance 1m
Speed Accuracy +/- 3Km/Hr (or +/- 1.5% whichever is greater)
Supply 9 - 30 V dc (power cables must be less than 3m)
Current 100mA (24V dc)
Weight 800g
Housing Material Polycarbonate
Housing Finish Self-coloured black
Sealing IP66
Operating Temperature -25º C to +60º C
Output RS422
EMC Specifi cation EN301-489/BSEN50293
Radio Specifi cation ETS300.440 / FCC CFR47 Part 15.245 / AS/NZS 4268
Highest Temp Humidity
Combination
50C 80%

*1. Frequency option preset to suit
local requirements between
24.000GHz and 24.250GHz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ4UHw51PbM