Three arrested over speed camera van fire

Run_to_da_hills

"Three men have been arrested as part of an investigation into a fire that caused extensive damage to a garda mobile safety camera van".

According to this they are two teens and one a jouvenile. Would this mean that if they are convicted they will be back out through the revolving door just like scumbag joyriders?.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0509/speedvan.html

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"Three men have been arrested as part of an investigation into a fire that caused extensive damage to a garda mobile safety camera van".

According to this they are two teens and one a jouvenile. Would this mean that if they are convicted they will be back out through the revolving door just like scumbag joyriders?.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0509/speedvan.html

I'm tempted to say the did us some service by burning a mobile toll booth.

Matt Simis

ronoc wrote: »

I'm tempted to say the did us some service by burning a mobile toll booth.

Now now, every other Speed Camera van fire (absurdly lol that this is a common thing now) thread gets derailed fairly promptly on the marmite reaction to this viewpoint.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to this they are two teens and one a jouvenile. Would this mean that if they are convicted they will be back out through the revolving door just like scumbag joyriders?.

It says late teens and one juvenile, so presumably the 2 are over 18 and therefore adults..?

Guy:Incognito

ronoc wrote: »

I'm tempted to say the did us some service by burning a mobile toll booth.

If I take a dislike to whatever you do for a living is the building fair game for me to torch while your in it?

It's a scumbag thing to do and condoning it isnt much better.

As for the toll comment, that implies youve no choice about gettign fined.....

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If I take a dislike to whatever you do for a living is the building fair game for me to torch while your in it?

It's a scumbag thing to do and condoning it isnt much better.

As for the toll comment, that implies youve no choice about gettign fined.....

There was no one hurt so there's no need to get worried about the safety of the safety van operator.

And yes it was a scumbag thing to do but look on the bright side. There is one less opportunity for them to shoot fish in a barrel.

wandatowell

Why are these things called Garda mobile vans???

Thought they had nothing to do with the Gardai

EPM

ronoc wrote: »

There was no one hurt so there's no need to get worried about the safety of the safety van operator.

And yes it was a scumbag thing to do but look on the bright side. There is one less opportunity for them to shoot fish in a barrel.

Enough already.

The next person to condone such actions gets a ban. Discuss the case but do not put forward an argument for that sort of action.

stevoslice

ronoc wrote: »

There was no one hurt so there's no need to get worried about the safety of the safety van operator.

And yes it was a scumbag thing to do but look on the bright side. There is one less opportunity for them to shoot fish in a barrel.

yeah no one was hurt so no one should worry...

first of all it's criminal damage, second, these vans won't shoot any fish in any barrel, if said fish are swimming at the legal barrel limit. trying to defend these hooligans or standing by their actions when they are putting peoples lives in danger is ridiculous.

I dislike speed vans as much as the next guy, i do drive at over the speed limit every once in a while, it is human nature after all, :eek:, but if/when i do get caught, it will totally be my fault and it will definitely not make me try and justify criminal damage/behaviour towards anyone.

Rented Mule

wandatowell wrote: »

Why are these things called Garda mobile vans???

Thought they had nothing to do with the Gardai

...apparently they spend more time parked them mobile too !!

Irony can be so ironic.

thebhoy

thebhoy wrote: »

yeah no one was hurt so no one should worry...

first of all it's criminal damage, second, these vans won't shoot any fish in any barrel, if said fish are swimming at the legal barrel limit. trying to defend these hooligans or standing by their actions when they are putting peoples lives in danger is ridiculous.

I dislike speed vans as much as the next guy, i do drive at over the speed limit every once in a while, it is human nature after all, :eek:, but if/when i do get caught, it will totally be my fault and it will definitely not make me try and justify criminal damage/behaviour towards anyone.

I guess I can't really comment on that now.

Suffice it to say I really dislike speed cameras and I think we are barking up the wrong tree with them. Better results would come from better driver education rather than this lazy "speed kills" mantra.

coylemj

ronoc wrote: »

Better results would come from better driver education rather than this lazy "speed kills" mantra.

Education only goes so far, it is mostly of benefit to people who genuinely want to improve their driving skills and who are receptive to infomercials such as the ones on the TV that show you how to drive around roundabouts.

Education is of no benefit to people who drive like idiots who think they own the road, like the moron in the van that crashed through a red pedestrian red light this afternoon near my estate and who almost ran over two young boys trying to walk home from school.

Sadly there is all too much evidence of cavalier and downright dangerous driving on our roads and for a lot of people the only solution is enforcement which means speed cameras and Garda checkpoints.

And by the way speed does kill, just look at all the single vehicle accidents that happen at weekends, almost all of which are caused by people driving too fast and losing control of their vehicle.

Marty McFly

coylemj wrote: »

And by the way speed does kill, just look at all the single vehicle accidents that happen at weekends, almost all of which are caused by people driving too fast and losing control of their vehicle.

Sorry im not trying to de rail the thread, but your statement may be correct but if you look most of these single vehicle accidents were people die are nearly always down the countryside were speed limits can be ridicously high for some of the roads, like a case i was reading last week were 3 teens died due to travelling to fast on a bend and lost control, but the investigation did conclude he was doing around 90kmh and the speed limit on the road was 100kmh. There needs to be a serious review of speed limits placed on some roads ive been on roads two or 3 lanes wide straight as can be and the speed limits been 60kmh where the logic? These are also the roads were you will find the speed vans not on roads were people have died like they keep saying.

Cuddlesworth

coylemj wrote: »

And by the way speed does kill, just look at all the single vehicle accidents that happen at weekends, almost all of which are caused by people driving too fast and losing control of their vehicle.

Speed is a factor in deaths. And a small one at that. Does it justify such a huge percentage of our expenditure? Since the new cameras and operators were introduced road deaths have increased implying that our road deaths may not be so closely linked to speeding as defined by the RSA or that the van's themselves have no noticeable effect.

As for the three little ****s, the other two should be at least 18. Otherwise why would they have such hatred towards the van?

ronoc

ronoc wrote: »

I guess I can't really comment on that now.

Suffice it to say I really dislike speed cameras and I think we are barking up the wrong tree with them. Better results would come from better driver education rather than this lazy "speed kills" mantra.

I agree, to a point ronoc, better driver education for sure and not allow anyone drive on public road without an instructor until they pass their test.

There should also be motorway training and testing and in Germany you have to take 2 tests, one during the day and one at night!

So many people don't know how to join motorways in this country especially at the M9 M7 north after the tunnel, people nearly stop like they are joining a main road from a country road, they don't understand you need to build up speed first then join! makes me so mad! :mad:

Roundabouts??? don't get me started!

I think they should ban all males under 25's from driving after 10 pm at night. Yeah I'm male and I don't agree women's insurance should go up either because of idiots on the road. I say take them off the road all together!!!

Young men are the highest risk, and I will be the first to say it, not all but a lot of them and this is where the problem is. They act like total idiots on the road boy racers in their pile of crap cars with holes in the exhaust, nuisances they are!

Sure younger lady drivers are not so good, but that's out of inexperience and not by pure neglect for other drivers safety, they don't intentionally go out of their way to drive like total idiots, trying to prove they are great drivers!

young lads use the road like their personal race tracks, (our roads) and where I live the place is full of them, nothing better to do than to drive at 50+ mph in residential areas and crazy speeds on country roads! This is where the bloody speed vans need to be in residential areas, even fixed cameras. I'm sick of the speeding through our village and local streets! (it's not all young drivers either)

The deaths usually happen on the way home from pubs and night clubs, the driver thinking he's a great lad by driving like an idiot. Drunk or High or both!

I say take them all off the road after 10 pm!

There should be vehicle cc, hp power restrictions on people who pass their test for 2 years until they can prove they are suitable and not a danger to the public

On younger drivers under 25 there should be a permanent restriction on private cars! And not allowed to drive their parents cars!

No more than 900 cc 60 Hp for unqualified drivers! and drivers under 25, there should also be a speed limit of 100 kph max, motorway and 80 kph for any other road!

Imagine we let unqualified drivers to drive on our roads? That's got to stop sometime!

If I was minister for transport I guarantee I would reduce road deaths by more than half!!!

There also needs to be greater amount of guards on the roads especially at night!

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to this they are two teens and one a jouvenile. Would this mean that if they are convicted they will be back out through the revolving door just like scumbag joyriders?.

Know anyone who was sent to St Pat's for a while? Not fun I believe.

seanybiker

Juvenile? So one of the people that burnt out a speed detector van isnt even old enough to drive in the first place so he just done it for shíts and giggles. what a complete numpty

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

Education only goes so far, it is mostly of benefit to people who genuinely want to improve their driving skills and who are receptive to infomercials such as the ones on the TV that show you how to drive around roundabouts.

Education is of no benefit to people who drive like idiots who think they own the road, like the moron in the van that crashed through a red pedestrian red light this afternoon near my estate and who almost ran over two young boys trying to walk home from school.

Sadly there is all too much evidence of cavalier and downright dangerous driving on our roads and for a lot of people the only solution is enforcement which means speed cameras and Garda checkpoints.

And by the way speed does kill, just look at all the single vehicle accidents that happen at weekends, almost all of which are caused by people driving too fast and losing control of their vehicle.

I would venture that it is difficult to find the reason or the mentality of the driver in the incident you mention.

One thing is for certain, we have a terrible education system when it comes to driving.
Also all the best countries for road fatalities have a much better driver training regimes.

I never said speed doesn't kill by the way. But in my 10+ years of driving the vast majority of speed traps have been in areas where it is obvious the trap is only interested in shooting fish in a barrel. And re branding them as "safety cameras" has done little to change my mind!

challengemaster

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree, to a point ronoc, better driver education for sure and not allow anyone drive on public road without an instructor until they pass their test.
....................

etc

Would you like a bigger brush and a much larger bucket for all that nonsense you're spouting?

Run_to_da_hills

RoverJames wrote: »

Know anyone who was sent to St Pat's for a while? Not fun I believe.

No, but I'm sure scumbags don't spend more than two years in there, we can see this from joy rider records. These fcukers need at least ten for attempted manslaughter.

Shane732

What I want to see is these vans to be clamped for illegal parking and then for a mass to brawl to ensue between the camera operatives and the clamps.

Could be a great way to eradicate the whole lot of them.

It'd be even better if the NCPS guys got involved.

Guy:Incognito

seanybiker wrote: »

Juvenile? So one of the people that burnt out a speed detector van isnt even old enough to drive in the first place so he just done it for shíts and giggles. what a complete numpty

Maybe he didnt like getting flashed in his robbed car.

Marty McFly

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No, but I'm sure scumbags don't spend more than two years in there, we can see this from joy rider records. These fcukers need at least ten for attempted manslaughter.

I dont thinks its the length of time that matters i think the whole youth offender sytem needs to be changed, it just doesnt work. a good friends brother got locked up for being a scumbag joyrider going back some years now and before anyone says it he came from a respectable family. But he got 1 year served 6 months and came out ten times worse than when he went in, came out strung out on heroin, its an amazing prison system we have in this country.

Drummerboy08

I'm kinda ashamed to even be from the same county as these vermin.

I also don't understand the hate being aimed at these cameras. I've passed quite alot of these vans since they were introduced, have I had any speeding fines yet? No. Don't drive like an arsehole and you won't have an issue.

If you do get caught, be man enough to stand up and accept that you were speeding. Be it 60 in a 50 or 120 in a 100, it's still the same. Cop onto yourselves if you think its a bad idea. if it saves one life then it's done what it was designed to do.

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I'm kinda ashamed to even be from the same county as these vermin.

I also don't understand the hate being aimed at these cameras. I've passed quite alot of these vans since they were introduced, have I had any speeding fines yet? No. Don't drive like an arsehole and you won't have an issue.

If you do get caught, be man enough to stand up and accept that you were speeding. Be it 60 in a 50 or 120 in a 100, it's still the same. Cop onto yourselves if you think its a bad idea. if it saves one life then it's done what it was designed to do.

+1, if you're too dozy to spot a camera van in time then you're too dozy to be speeding.

Shane732

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

.

If you do get caught, be man enough to stand up and accept that you were speeding. Be it 60 in a 50 or 120 in a 100, it's still the same. Cop onto yourselves if you think its a bad idea. if it saves one life then it's done what it was designed to do.

Nah the hire 6-7 senior counsel and find some legal technicality to get off works much better!!

Drummerboy08

Shane732 wrote: »

Nah the hire 6-7 senior counsel and find some legal technicality to get off works much better!!

It would be cheaper, quicker, and easier to just man up! Not only that, but imagine funding that pr1ck Gerald Keane and his like :D

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

+1, if you're too dozy to spot a camera van in time then you're too dozy to be speeding.

They're bright red/white with loads of "Safety Camera" stickers on em, and they're usually parked in the most obvious place possible.

To me, if you can't spot these before it's too late, you're not paying enough attention to what's in front of you.

Anan1

Trying to weasel out of something you know you did is a bit sad, at least in my book. If anyone's that convinced of the righteousness of their cause then stand up in court and make your point. Bringing in barristers just makes one look like a liar who's upset at getting caught.

Shane732

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

They're bright red/white with loads of "Safety Camera" stickers on em, and they're usually parked in the most obvious place possible.

To me, if you can't spot these before it's too late, you're not paying enough attention to what's in front of you.

How far away do they actually catch you? I'm sure this has been asked on numerous occasions but it's something I don't actually know.

Are they like the stationary Gatso in that you have to be right up on them before they catch you?

Shane732

Anan1 wrote: »

Trying to weasel out of something you know you did is a bit sad, at least in my book. If anyone's that convinced of the righteousness of their cause then stand up in court and make your point. Bringing in barristers just makes one look like a liar who's upset at getting caught.

In fairness brining barristers with you doesn't make one look like a liar. Are you referring just to a speeding offence or in general? If just a speeding offence then why? There are quality barristers out there that I've seen in action and who repeatedly win cases that in reality they shouldn't win.

Personally I think you'd be absolutely nuts to go near a court room scenario without some form of legal representation.

I relation to weaseling out of something - It's not weaseling out of anything, rather applying the law correctly.

challengemaster

Shane732 wrote: »

How far away do they actually catch you? I'm sure this has been asked on numerous occasions but it's something I don't actually know.

Are they like the stationary Gatso in that you have to be right up on them before they catch you?

I suppose the answer is....depends where it's aimed. :pac:

Shane732

challengemaster wrote: »

I suppose the answer is....depends where it's aimed. :pac:

Perhaps a more appropriate question would what's the maximum distance they can catch you from!

challengemaster

Shane732 wrote: »

Perhaps a more appropriate question would what's the maximum distance they can catch you from!

Funnily enough, a google throws up another boards thread...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056091811

-Corkie-

Shane732 wrote: »

How far away do they actually catch you? I'm sure this has been asked on numerous occasions but it's something I don't actually know.

Are they like the stationary Gatso in that you have to be right up on them before they catch you?

IIRC it is a fairly long distance as in 5-600 metres. You would be most lightly caught if you were on a quiet road and day dreaming before you would cop the van..

Gophur

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I'm kinda ashamed to even be from the same county as these vermin.

I also don't understand the hate being aimed at these cameras. I've passed quite alot of these vans since they were introduced, have I had any speeding fines yet? No. Don't drive like an arsehole and you won't have an issue.

If you do get caught, be man enough to stand up and accept that you were speeding. Be it 60 in a 50 or 120 in a 100, it's still the same. Cop onto yourselves if you think its a bad idea. if it saves one life then it's done what it was designed to do.

Anan1 wrote: »

+1, if you're too dozy to spot a camera van in time then you're too dozy to be speeding.

It must be great to be so righteous, lads?


Some of these speed cameras are imposing ridiculous nonsensical speed limits. If they (the powers that be) were serious about Road Safety, they'd use more intelligent ways to attack dangerous driving. The RSA and Govt/Garda mantra that exceeding a speed limit is automatically dangerous shows a dangerously low level of intelligence about what is a serious matter.

A road close to me has two of these new enforcement zones, regularly policed by the Spectra vans, and probably because of two fatal accidents in recent years.

Excess speed is not and was not a problem on the road, but purely because of the two accidents the camera has been delegated to police the road, justifying its existence by catching people, the vast majority who are driving perfectly safely, but just because their speedometer reading exceeds a number thought up by some bureaucrat they are deemed to be driving dangerously and must be punished.

The percentage of actual dangerous drivers amongst the people it catches will be minuscule. Does this justify its existence?

Well, it's a €15k van, with an operator costing the guts of €50k per year, to employ, with €10k of equipment, so it will have to catch 200 errant motorists per week, jut to pay for itself, before it puts one cent back into Road Safety.

Shane732

Gophur wrote: »

It must be great to be so righteous, lads?


Some of these speed cameras are imposing ridiculous nonsensical speed limits. If they (the powers that be) were serious about Road Safety, they'd use more intelligent ways to attack dangerous driving. The RSA and Govt/Garda mantra that exceeding a speed limit is automatically dangerous shows a dangerously low level of intelligence about what is a serious matter.

A road close to me has two of these new enforcement zones, regularly policed by the Spectra vans, and probably because of two fatal accidents in recent years.

Excess speed is not and was not a problem on the road, but purely because of the two accidents the camera has been delegated to police the road, justifying its existence by catching people, the vast majority who are driving perfectly safely, but just because their speedometer reading exceeds a number thought up by some bureaucrat they are deemed to be driving dangerously and must be punished.

The percentage of actual dangerous drivers amongst the people it catches will be minuscule. Does this justify its existence?

Well, it's a €15k van, with an operator costing the guts of €50k per year, to employ, with €10k of equipment, so it will have to catch 200 errant motorists per week, jut to pay for itself, before it puts one cent back into Road Safety.

Agree with some of your comments above but I'm not too sure about your calculation. How much do Gosafe receive for each highly danger individual they catch speeding...

-Corkie-

Its a fixed cost contract. It dont matter how many they catch supposedly. The vans cost 70k euro but the operators are on 10 euro per hour.

Read from post 23 on

corktina

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No, but I'm sure scumbags don't spend more than two years in there, we can see this from joy rider records. These fcukers need at least ten for attempted manslaughter.

i dont think you can be done for attempted manslaughter.... if you intended to kill the guys but failed, it would be attmpted murder.

Gophur

Shane732 wrote: »

Agree with some of your comments above but I'm not too sure about your calculation. How much do Gosafe receive for each highly danger individual they catch speeding...

-Corkie- wrote: »

Its a fixed cost contract. It dont matter how many they catch supposedly. The vans cost 70k euro but the operators are on 10 euro per hour.

It is a fixed cost contract but the fixed cost is as per my figures. There's one hell of an overhead to clear before the State gets any worthwhile revenue.

The vans are approx €15k each, ex-VAT, the equipment cannot be any more than €10k. The €70k figure, however, would be close to what I calculated as their annual cost.
Now, if Spectra, the owners of the vans, invest €70k p.a. in each van, they will want a profit of 20%-40% on this, so you could be looking at an actual figure, being paid to the operators, of close on €100k per van, per year.


There may well be no "incentive" for SPECTRA to catch too many errand drivers, but if they can prove themselves to the State, they will be in pole position for any extra vans to be put into circulation.

They are a very poor tool being utilised to achieve the so-called objectives.

challengemaster

corktina wrote: »

i dont think you can be done for attempted manslaughter....

Bit like saying "I intended to accidentally..."

Doesn't make sense.

Drummerboy08

Gophur wrote: »

It must be great to be so righteous, lads?


Some of these speed cameras are imposing ridiculous nonsensical speed limits. If they (the powers that be) were serious about Road Safety, they'd use more intelligent ways to attack dangerous driving. The RSA and Govt/Garda mantra that exceeding a speed limit is automatically dangerous shows a dangerously low level of intelligence about what is a serious matter.

A road close to me has two of these new enforcement zones, regularly policed by the Spectra vans, and probably because of two fatal accidents in recent years.

Excess speed is not and was not a problem on the road, but purely because of the two accidents the camera has been delegated to police the road, justifying its existence by catching people, the vast majority who are driving perfectly safely, but just because their speedometer reading exceeds a number thought up by some bureaucrat they are deemed to be driving dangerously and must be punished.

The percentage of actual dangerous drivers amongst the people it catches will be minuscule. Does this justify its existence?

Well, it's a €15k van, with an operator costing the guts of €50k per year, to employ, with €10k of equipment, so it will have to catch 200 errant motorists per week, jut to pay for itself, before it puts one cent back into Road Safety.

It's nothing to do with being righteous. It's to do with the law.

If you are over the speed limit, unfortunately you are breaking the law. Live and stand by your actions.

If you cannot appreciate that these vans may save one or two lifes, or prevent an accident then I suggest you visit the National Rehabilitation Centre in Dun Laoghaire, Dublin. Maybe after seeing some of the pretty fcuking horrific sights in there caused by RTA's you'll learn to appreciate every little effort made by anyone to prevent an accident on a road.

I'll admit I speed. I'll only do it on an empty road late at night coming back from a gig, but it's a risk I take. If I get caught, I'll accept the punishment because I know i'm in the wrong.

-Corkie-

I agree with you and neither Spectra or the RSA will tell the truth on whos making what..

Gophur

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

It's nothing to do with being righteous. It's to do with the law.

If you are over the speed limit, unfortunately you are breaking the law. Live and stand by your actions.

If you cannot appreciate that these vans may save one or two lifes, or prevent an accident then I suggest you visit the National Rehabilitation Centre in Dun Laoghaire, Dublin. Maybe after seeing some of the pretty fcuking horrific sights in there caused by RTA's you'll learn to appreciate every little effort made by anyone to prevent an accident on a road.

I'll admit I speed. I'll only do it on an empty road late at night coming back from a gig, but it's a risk I take. If I get caught, I'll accept the punishment because I know i'm in the wrong.

Trying to hang a guilt trip on people will not justify the existence of these cameras. They will not make the roads safer, they will not reduce the number of unfortunates in Rehab.

I would be all in favour of intelligent Road Safety improvement measures. These cameras are not an intelligent approach to Road Safety. They are window dressing for a lack of willingness to do something right.


It may well be The Law, but exceeding a speed limit is not necessarily dangerous, despite all the waffle for the Speed Camera advocates.

challengemaster

New official name for the Gardaí?
Garda Síochána na hÉireann - Guardians of the Peace in Ireland

Gineadóirí Ioncaim na hÉireann - Revenue generators in Ireland

Guy:Incognito

Gophur wrote: »

It must be great to be so righteous, lads?


Some of these speed cameras are imposing ridiculous nonsensical speed limits. .

So the way to voice your concern about silly speed limits is to break them then have a moan about getting fined

Guy:Incognito

Gophur wrote: »

It may well be The Law, but exceeding a speed limit is not necessarily dangerous, despite all the waffle for the Speed Camera advocates.

and a lot of times it is, despite the waffle from people moaning about them.

Drummerboy08

Gophur wrote: »

Trying to hang a guilt trip on people will not justify the existence of these cameras. They will not make the roads safer, they will not reduce the number of unfortunates in Rehab.

I would be all in favour of intelligent Road Safety improvement measures. These cameras are not an intelligent approach to Road Safety. They are window dressing for a lack of willingness to do something right.


It may well be The Law, but exceeding a speed limit is not necessarily dangerous, despite all the waffle for the Speed Camera advocates.

I'm not trying to hang a guilt trip on anybody. I just suggested that you should go and see the affects of a serious RTA, be in caused by speed, drink or whatever. Maybe then you will change your outlook on these cameras.

I do disagree with you though when it comes to numbers - I work in a business where I can already see a difference in driver's attitudes to speed. Already people are saying "Sure I have to slow down now, can't risk losing the licence". If people drive within the speed limits, it gives the car every chance of stopping in an emergency if needs be. Even 10kmph over the limit can be fatal in some cases.

I agree with you that breaking a speed limit may not be dangerous, but unfortunately the law is the law. If you don't like go, go and talk to the person you voted into power.

If you believe you have a better solution to prevent deaths on Irish roads, lets hear it!

challengemaster wrote: »

New official name for the Gardaí?
Garda Síochána na hÉireann - Guardians of the Peace in Ireland

Gineadóirí Ioncaim na hÉireann - Revenue generators in Ireland

In my eyes, that's probably the most ill-informed and stupid post I've ever seen on this forum. I hope to god that you never need the assistance of AGS with an attitude like that dude.

VanhireBoys

I seen one in a 50kmh zone.. I turned and approached the van flat out ! well 62kmh according to the readout...

Wonder if Im caught ... Well I was on the pushbike

Maybe the bike is too narrow to detect...?

challengemaster

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

In my eyes, that's probably the most ill-informed and stupid post I've ever seen on this forum. I hope to god that you never need the assistance of AGS with an attitude like that dude.

Oh trust me, I hope I never actually need them too - I've come across more than enough examples of how "useful" they can be.

Drummerboy08

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

I'm not trying to hang a guilt trip on anybody. I just suggested that you should go and see the affects of a serious RTA, be in caused by speed, drink or whatever. Maybe then you will change your outlook on these cameras.

I do disagree with you though when it comes to numbers - I work in a business where I can already see a difference in driver's attitudes to speed. Already people are saying "Sure I have to slow down now, can't risk losing the licence". If people drive within the speed limits, it gives the car every chance of stopping in an emergency if needs be. Even 10kmph over the limit can be fatal in some cases.

I agree with you that breaking a speed limit may not be dangerous, but unfortunately the law is the law. If you don't like go, go and talk to the person you voted into power.

If you believe you have a better solution to prevent deaths on Irish roads, lets hear it!



In my eyes, that's probably the most ill-informed and stupid post I've ever seen on this forum. I hope to god that you never need the assistance of AGS with an attitude like that dude.

Enforcing speed limits with safety vans in a country where speed limits are often arbitrary and unplanned will save few if any lives. It's a highly visible sticky plaster solution to road deaths.
Until we start educating drivers at and an early age and introduce more rigorous education and testing it will remain a cop out solution.

Run_to_da_hills

VanhireBoys wrote: »

I seen one in a 50kmh zone.. I turned and approached the van flat out ! well 62kmh according to the readout...

Wonder if Im caught ... Well I was on the pushbike

Maybe the bike is too narrow to detect...?

If they can detect someone on a pair of roller scates theres no reason why they can't detect someone on a push bike.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3565777/Prankster-triggers-speed-camera-on-ROLLER-SKATES.html