3 Speeding Fines in 22 minutes from same spot...

Caroline K

Morning folks,

Just got a call from my Mum to say my Dad has just gotten 3 speeding fines in the post!!! He's pretty stunned as I don't think he's ever had a speeding ticket before. I've been getting the details over the phone but it seems he was clocked by a GATSO van at 17.25, 17.45 and 17.47 in the same place on the same day doing 64km, 64km and 71km in a 60km zone ... Need to sit down with Dad and discuss, but safe to say that he's a pensioner and isn't exactly one for "cruisin' round town"...

The three fines make no sense... If the van records cars going both ways I'd say the first fine at 17.25 was him going into town and the second at 17.45 was him coming out of town - there's 20 minutes between them so it would make sense... However, on top of the fact that 64km in a 60km zone is a bit harsh - twice in 20 minutes - the third fine at 17.47 makes no sense... He would have had to turn around and race back to pass the van again two minutes later... The letters arrived today and the fines are from 3 and a half weeks ago so its hard to remember what one was doing on a given day. But he has no recollection of turning around and going back to town again any time recently and, suffice to say that we're regimental in our house - these fines occurred coming up to dinnertime and, as Dad is the cook in our house, he wouldn't be driving in and out of town repeatedly at that time of the day when he should be at home... Accepting the first two as very hard luck, the third seems to be some sort of an error.

At a cost of €240 and 6 penalty points, I would love to hear your thoughts on this...

mitosis

They will have pictures. He could ask to see them. But if he was caught speeding three times, he was speeding three times and will have to suck it down, I'm afraid.

Atomic Pineapple

Caroline K wrote: »

I would love to hear your thoughts on this...

He got stung so hard luck I'm afraid, how did he not see the van the first time? Generally I find they're pretty visible so he should have known it was there on the way back?

Maybe the third fine comes from a different van 2 minutes down the road too?

I've also never heard of anyone getting fines for being so little over the limit.

pred racer

64km is harsh imo.

the culture of deference

What was the location.

challengemaster

pred racer wrote: »

64km is harsh imo.

Add on an indicated 10% error on the speedo and maybe +/-1-2km/h for accuracy on the vans part.. Could have been doing an anything up to an indicated 70km/h+

Stark

I say go to court with it. The two fines two minutes apart from each other is enough reasonable doubt imo.

Berty

The letter will have a picture on it of the reg. You will need to write to them for the full picture though.

64km in a 60km/h seems very harsh. You could do 4km/h extra simply by coughing heavily.

Caroline K

the culture of deference wrote: »

What was the location.

The location is described as Spafield - I assume its a stretch of road going out of Cashel towards the M8 motorway on the old Cahir Road.

Don't know how poor Dad didn't see the van - it must have been somewhere visable. They are supposed to be marked aren't they?

Doubt its two vans as the stretch of road that address applies to wouldn't be long enough to put two vans on... Can't even see how he could have pulled in the car on a busy bit of road, turned around and gotten up to 71km to pass the van again two minutes later...

Agree that over the limit is over the limit but by just 4km? Pretty harsh!

challengemaster

Stark wrote: »

I say go to court with it. The two fines two minutes apart from each other is enough reasonable doubt imo.

Not without getting the photos first it's not.

Since the vans work both ways isn't it possible that at 17:45:45 he came into the vans range and was caught @64km/h, kept accelerating slightly and 1:15 mins later he's on the far side of the van doing 71km/h @17:47

Caroline K

Beer Baron wrote: »

The letter will have a picture on it of the reg. You will need to write to them for the full picture though.

64km in a 60km/h seems very harsh. You could do 4km/h extra simply by coughing heavily.

Will definitely write to them for photos - the notices don't even tell you what diection you're driving so with three notices its quite complicated to figure out!

challengemaster

Caroline K wrote: »

Agree that over the limit is over the limit but by just 4km? Pretty harsh!

Car speedos usually over read by up to 10%, so he was probably doing ~70km/h in terms of what the speedo was reading.

Caroline K

challengemaster wrote: »

Not without getting the photos first it's not.

Since the vans work both ways isn't it possible that at 17:45:45 he came into the vans range and was caught @64km/h, kept accelerating slightly and 1:15 mins later he's on the far side of the van doing 71km/h @17:47

Thats interesting - I though the vans can only capture photos out through the back window - not through the front?

On the other hand, I would imagine the vans are not allowed to clock you twice in the one go are they? If they did, almost everyone would get two fines each time.

Also, I don't think the road is long enough for a car to be in view over a two minute spread...

msg11

Caroline K wrote: »

Thats interesting - I though the vans can only capture photos out through the back window - not through the front?

On the other hand, I would imagine the vans are not allowed to clock you twice in the one go are they? If they did, almost everyone would get two fines each time.

Also, I don't think the road is long enough for a car to be in view over a two minute spread...

There's only one camera at the back, it can work up too 6 lanes of traffic in any direction at any time. It's down to the operator how many lanes they want to work, but it can work up too 6.

charlemont

Maybe someone is using a copy of his plates.

celticbest

Just look for full pictures and then work from there. There is no point speculating beforehand.

channelsurfer2

pred racer wrote: »

64km is harsh imo.

I think someone posted previously that the GOSafe vans had reduced their threshold to +4km so this is what probably happened that he just hit the 64kph threshold and the fine was issued.

K2

Or maybe he was actually Speeding! The photos from the van will easily confirm this. Everything else is just speculation.

washman3

Revenue collecting exercise. Absolute zilch to do with road safety. Plain and simple...:mad:

Caroline K

msg11 wrote: »

There's only one camera at the back, it can work up too 6 lanes of traffic in any direction at any time. It's down to the operator how many lanes they want to work, but it can work up too 6.

Thanks, that means that they're definitely referring to three separate trips anyway...

Didn't know about marking down your speed by 10% - that makes it hard to argue with. But its the two within 2 minutes thats just so bizarre. The photos will definitely help...

the culture of deference

Caroline K wrote: »

The location is described as Spafield - I assume its a stretch of road going out of Cashel towards the M8 motorway on the old Cahir Road.

The area named must match the townland location, the local superintendent is the person to talk to.
Email
npo@garda.ie

Caroline K wrote: »

Will definitely write to them for photos - the notices don't even tell you what diection you're driving so with three notices its quite complicated to figure out!

Look at the photo's 1st

celticbest wrote: »

Just look for full pictures and then work from there. There is no point speculating beforehand.

+1
don't worry until you know that it's not an error

smemon

challengemaster wrote: »

Car speedos usually over read by up to 10%, so he was probably doing ~70km/h in terms of what the speedo was reading.

If the tyre sizes are larger / smaller, the speedo may be on the money or indeed under estimating your speed.

Let's say car is 2nd hand with larger wheels fitted. Average joe buys it and for all he knows what's on the speedo could be 5km less than the speed he's travelling at.

The old +10% trick goes out the window in that case.

msg11

Caroline K wrote: »

Thanks, that means that they're definitely referring to three separate trips anyway...

Didn't know about marking down your speed by 10% - that makes it hard to argue with. But its the two within 2 minutes thats just so bizarre. The photos will definitely help...

Well it's up too the operator how many lanes the computer will run, but it can do six, the new Garda vans and Gosafe.

The clock in the car gives you a higher speed than the car is doing, varies from manufacture to manufacture what % and there is 1/2% allowed over the speed limit.

Best advise I can give is if you know your route well, you'll know the places for the cameras and just keep any eye out and don't be going so fast that when you see the camera you can't bring your speed down to the limit.

challengemaster

smemon wrote: »

If the tyre sizes are larger / smaller, the speedo may be on the money or indeed under estimating your speed.

Let's say car is 2nd hand with larger wheels fitted. Average joe buys it and for all he knows what's on the speedo could be 5km less than the speed he's travelling at.

The old +10% trick goes out the window in that case.

You do know you'd have to change from 15/16" to about 19/20+" to see that 10% difference vanish, let alone UNDER read by 5km/h.

And I can't see a pensioner driving around with 22" rims in Ireland, tbh. :pac:

namoosh

To the best of my knowledge there are two cameras in the back of the vans, the one that covers the side of the road the van is parked on works automatically, the one that covers the opposite side of the road is manned by an operator. They capture the images from the rear of the van.

I'd write to them, look for the pictures and see if they match your dads numberplate. If they don't go to court and challenge, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and most district justices are reasonable.

Those vans have nothing to do with road safety, its all about revenue raising. they are regularly down the road from me where the speed limit changes from 80 to 60 k for a few hyndred metres and then back again. I'm living here 32 years and have never seen or heard of any kind of accident there.

mitosis

namoosh wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge there are two cameras in the back of the vans, the one that covers the side of the road the van is parked on works automatically, the one that covers the opposite side of the road is manned by an operator. They capture the images from the rear of the van.

I'd write to them, look for the pictures and see if they match your dads numberplate. If they don't go to court and challenge, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and most district justices are reasonable.

Those vans have nothing to do with road safety, its all about revenue raising. they are regularly down the road from me where the speed limit changes from 80 to 60 k for a few hyndred metres and then back again. I'm living here 32 years and have never seen or heard of any kind of accident there.

Finally, evidence they prevent accidents!

Tea 1000

challengemaster wrote: »

You do know you'd have to change from 15/16" to about 19/20+" to see that 10% difference vanish, let alone UNDER read by 5km/h.

And I can't see a pensioner driving around with 22" rims in Ireland, tbh. :pac:

Actually many cars can under read at slower speeds where as almost all over read at around 100kph. So he might actually have been doing the speed limit.
I'd check his car speed against a GPS device to check. If it shows that it under reads at that speed then you might have a case! Insist that if they're going to be that anal, then the NCT should be forced to check the accuracy of the speedo. How else are we meant to know?

the culture of deference

namoosh wrote: »

Those vans have nothing to do with road safety, its all about revenue raising. they are regularly down the road from me where the speed limit changes from 80 to 60 k for a few hyndred metres and then back again. I'm living here 32 years and have never seen or heard of any kind of accident there.

+1

I have driven past a van outside the spa hotel on the N4 inbound, then another van after the lucan flyover, then another just before the esso in Palmerstown. All straight stretches and 80kph limit until after the deadman's where it goes to 60kph.

-Corkie-

Just because your dad dont speed it do not mean he did not commit the offence. I was stuck behind some old fella heading into Mallow a few weeks ago doing 70kph on a perfectly straight road in a 100kph zone.

When we approahed the 50kph limit in Mallow he continued at the same speed and there was the gatso van sitting on the side of the road..

I did smile...:)

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

+1 for the oulfella cruising around town for fun :pac:

just kidding but on a serious note get the full pictures and see if it's him and the car.

could possibly be copied plates or an error of some kind.

or he actually was speeding.


[sarcastic part of post]
I don't think the speed camera vans are just for money making. sure they are just white vans there to surprise you when you speed and not let you know bout it until you get a fine in the post.
[/sarcastic part of post]

would be grand if one got clamped for not paying for parking. just a white van afterall.

Gee Bag

smemon wrote: »

If the tyre sizes are larger / smaller, the speedo may be on the money or indeed under estimating your speed.

Let's say car is 2nd hand with larger wheels fitted. Average joe buys it and for all he knows what's on the speedo could be 5km less than the speed he's travelling at.

The old +10% trick goes out the window in that case.

I never thought of that, I have larger tyres than the manufacturers standard. Best check it out.

I read about a case in Switzerland a few years ago where a motorist passed by a fixed camera and saw the camera flash in his rear view. He drove up and down the same stretch of road a good few times to try and figure out what the flash was. He managed to rack up enough points to get a ban in a single afternoon.

BronsonTB

Ring up with the details & explain to the operator, they'll then investigate & have the required info to hand.

Then come back & give us an update to avoid the pointless posts from people here that don't know the facts.

Mistakes do happen, even with issuing speeding tickets!

Generally you'll only get 1 fine for a 5 min interval unless you were racing up & down the road but it sounds like your dad isn't a racer!!

Caroline K

Thanks to everyone for their replies - its great to hear thoughts from both sides!

In terms of location, its just a road on the edge of Cashel town, one lane either direction and in my 30 years living here I don't ever remember an accident on that stretch. Its a long straight wide section of road that was the Old Cork Dublin Road from the town so its extremely easy to speed on without intending too - Personally I feel that pulling there is just easy pickings to fill the coffers but that doesn't change the fact that, by all means, the speed limit is the speed limit. And I don't deny that Dad might have been speeding (in his 2002 VW Estate - without a a tinted window or a boy racer's tyre in sight!!!) but the number of fines is the bizarre bit...

To avoid speculation, I'll update you when I see photos and know more. I think Dad is going into the Garda station to see when our local lads think. When I know more, I'll update you on the outcome. Thanks a mil again to all posters and watch this space!

Caroline K

One thing is for sure though... whatever way this works out good or bad, when a point in time comes when we can laugh about this, I'm going to have to buy him some furry dice, a loud exhaust and the latest Dance album for him to play with the windows down when he's driving .

Turner

Are you sure its 64 in a 60. Doesn't sound right.

Was it 64 in a 50 ?

limklad

-Corkie- wrote: »

Just because your dad dont speed it do not mean he did not commit the offence. I was stuck behind some old fella heading into Mallow a few weeks ago doing 70kph on a perfectly straight road in a 100kph zone.

When we approahed the 50kph limit in Mallow he continued at the same speed and there was the gatso van sitting on the side of the road..

I did smile...:)

I have seen this behaviour far took many times, usually with a large fleet of Vehicles behind the slow drivers on wide 100kph main roads who regularly break the Urban speed limits of 60 and 50Kph when approaching villages and towns.

Mr Simpson

challengemaster wrote: »

Not without getting the photos first it's not.

Since the vans work both ways isn't it possible that at 17:45:45 he came into the vans range and was caught @64km/h, kept accelerating slightly and 1:15 mins later he's on the far side of the van doing 71km/h @17:47

If its taking him 1.15 to get from one side of the van to the other he wouldnt be getting a speeding ticket

Seriously though, they can catch traffic traveling in both directions, but only from the rear of the van.

challengemaster

mmcn90 wrote: »

If its taking him 1.15 to get from one side of the van to the other he wouldnt be getting a speeding ticket

Seriously though, they can catch traffic traveling in both directions, but only from the rear of the van.

Yeah, Depends on the range of the van too though!

So does that mean you can lamp on the anchors if you're coming at it from the front of the van and be grand? :pac:

guil

challengemaster wrote: »

Yeah, Depends on the range of the van too though!

So does that mean you can lamp on the anchors if you're coming at it from the front of the van and be grand? :pac:

Yes, the only camera facing forward is the same as what you see on bin lorries and tippers

Mr Simpson

challengemaster wrote: »

Yeah, Depends on the range of the van too though!

So does that mean you can lamp on the anchors if you're coming at it from the front of the van and be grand? :pac:

AFAIK yeah, the camera at the front is to try and catch the guy who's petrol bombing it!

(I'm not actually joking or making light of the situation, this is what the front camera is for)

TheChizler

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Actually many cars can under read at slower speeds where as almost all over read at around 100kph. So he might actually have been doing the speed limit.
I'd check his car speed against a GPS device to check. If it shows that it under reads at that speed then you might have a case! Insist that if they're going to be that anal, then the NCT should be forced to check the accuracy of the speedo. How else are we meant to know?

Speedos aren't allowed to under read, EU law! That's why they err on the side of caution and over read by a large %age due to factors like possible large tyres. There would have to be something seriously wrong for the car to under read, it's possible, but there are huge precautions put in place against it.

Reg'stoy

Turner wrote: »

Are you sure its 64 in a 60. Doesn't sound right.

Was it 64 in a 50 ?

You may be correct, if it's the cahir road within the town, then it's a 50kph limit.

dingus12

I wonder how many oul fella's that are driving 50+ years that have never caused and accident or been invovled in anything that have been nabbed by these vans, when they are clearly no danger to anyone.

challengemaster

dingus12 wrote: »

I wonder how many oul fella's that are driving 50+ years that have never caused and accident or been invovled in anything that have been nabbed by these vans, when they are clearly no danger to anyone.

You mean everyone that never sat any form of driving test? Sure how could they be bad drivers at all...:rolleyes:

Dionysius2

As regards the location for the Gatso, I suggest that there's a good possibility that it was parked on private property, maybe a garage fourcourt or an empty factory carpark and that's why he didn't see it ?
Is that possible ?

dingus12

challengemaster wrote: »

You mean everyone that never sat any form of driving test? Sure how could they be bad drivers at all...:rolleyes:

50 years with not a fender bender might be a record every one should strive for, who's to say they wouldn't pass if they where required to do it, granted it's a very small minority im talking about here, most of the older generation are terrible drivers.

Mr Simpson

dingus12 wrote: »

50 years with not a fender bender might be a record every one should strive for, who's to say they wouldn't pass if they where required to do it, granted it's a very small minority im talking about here, most of the older generation are terrible drivers.

Just because they haven't had an accident in 50 years, doesn't mean they are immune from having one tomorrow. Luck plays a huge part at times. Without sounding like I need a ladder to get off my horse, the speed limits are there for a reason, and for everyone to follow, no matter how long you've been driving without an accident.

BostonB

channelsurfer2 wrote: »

I think someone posted previously that the GOSafe vans had reduced their threshold to +4km so this is what probably happened that he just hit the 64kph threshold and the fine was issued.

News to me when did this happen? I always though you were safe up to under 10% over. I know someone caught a few weeks back, also with 50yrs clean licence, caught a few kph over the limit. They are quite shocked with it.I told them to suck it up. But after 50yrs clean licence I can imagine its a bit more impact than someone younger. TBH in the same place I would have been probably caught aswell except I had the GPS up and its much more obvious on that the current limit and your own speed. I find the GPS reads lower than the speedo though. I assume its not that accurate though.

mmcn90 wrote: »

Just because they haven't had an accident in 50 years, doesn't mean they are immune from having one tomorrow. Luck plays a huge part at times. Without sounding like I need a ladder to get off my horse, the speed limits are there for a reason, and for everyone to follow, no matter how long you've been driving without an accident.

If some ones been driving for 50yrs without a ticket, or an accident, I don't believe they've been just lucky. Usually bad drivers, or speeding is a habit, which they do continuously.

Considering you see horrendous driving in the same places everyday with no enforcement, I think it does nothing for road safety to catch people out with a couple a few kph over the limit on safe roads. Especially if they have a clean record to date. If they were catching persistent offenders on dangerous places then fair enough.

But 3 times in 22 mins. :eek:

Mr Simpson

BostonB wrote: »

If some ones been driving for 50yrs without a ticket, or an accident, I don't believe they've been just lucky. Usually bad drivers, or speeding is a habit, which they do continuously.

Considering you see horrendous driving in the same places everyday with no enforcement, I think it does nothing for road safety to catch people out with a couple a few kph over the limit on safe roads. Especially if they have a clean record to date. If they were catching persistent offenders on dangerous places then fair enough.

But 3 times in 22 mins. :eek:

I agree luck isn't everything, but I still believe it plays a part. I also think this may be a mistake and they should request photos.

And, just because somebody has never been caught, doesn't mean they don't continuously break the law.

BostonB

mmcn90 wrote: »

I agree luck isn't everything, but I still believe it plays a part. I also think this may be a mistake and they should request photos.

And, just because somebody has never been caught, doesn't mean they don't continuously break the law.

I don't believe there is anyone who obeys the law 100%. At some point even inadvertently, you're going to miss a sign, or something. But you got to put it in context. I drove a long way down the M50 at the weekend, and it was busy, and I was the only car for 20 mins that was under/on the limit. Considering there was heavy rain at the time.

dingus12

mmcn90 wrote: »

I agree luck isn't everything, but I still believe it plays a part. I also think this may be a mistake and they should request photos.

And, just because somebody has never been caught, doesn't mean they don't continuously break the law.

My point is, catching an oul fella with such a record for 4 kph over the limit, has no effect what so ever on road safety, whether he has broken the law or not, nor will it teach him anything but that it's nothing more than a money making racket to have the threshold so low. 10kph over yes do him, but 4 is a joke.