Do you feel speed van work

brokenarms

I, as a resident have recently complained to the Garda in relation to the speed of motorists entering my village .
Their answer last week was a speed detection van placed in a very visible spot for 2 days.
My reasons behind the complaint was a number of separate fatal accidents over the last two years . And numerous collisions where speed could have been a factor. I have a young family and feel the speed of cars to be a threat to my children's safety.
Observing the road now, it seems to have helped as the speed of the traffic has reduced even when the van is not there.

I would say it has been a complete success and made our 50kph zone a safer place.

I though this may be a good place to debate the issue and answer a few questions I still have.

Why people flash and warn dangerous drivers of the upcoming van?
Surly warning some bad drivers who are blatantly disrespecting the law and people around them need to be flashed before they hurt someone.

Do you feel these devices are there to increase revenue only?

Do you think they will reduce road deaths on our roads?

dgt

brokenarms wrote: »

I, as a resident have recently complained to the Garda in relation to the speed of motorists entering my village .
Their answer last week was a speed detection van placed in a very visible spot for 2 days.
My reasons behind the complaint was a number of separate fatal accidents over the last two years . And numerous collisions where speed could have been a factor. I have a young family and feel the speed of cars to be a threat to my children's safety.
Observing the road now, it seems to have helped as the speed of the traffic has reduced even when the van is not there.

I would say it has been a complete success and made our 50kph zone a safer place.

I though this may be a good place to debate the issue and answer a few questions I still have.

Why people flash and warn dangerous drivers of the upcoming van?
Surly warning some bad drivers who are blatantly disrespecting the law and people around them need to be flashed before they hurt someone.

Do you feel these devices are there to increase revenue only?

Do you think they will reduce road deaths on our roads?

Why make such a sweeping generalisation? Do you obey all laws and not break them even accidentally?

Do you drive long distances?

That's only one such area where it may have made a significant difference but I can think of many other places where it is just a blatant money spinner. Saving lives? My arse

This type of thread has been done many, many times and there are mixed views

SV

brokenarms wrote: »

Why people flash and warn dangerous drivers of the upcoming van?
Surly warning some bad drivers who are blatantly disrespecting the law and people around them need to be flashed before they hurt someone.

Hang on, the point of these so called 'safety vans' is to reduce the speed of motorists on the road, is it not?

If someone flashes the person then they're going to slow down so they don't get a fine and thus the point of the safety van has been fulfilled.

ba_barabus

SV wrote: »

Hang on, the point of these so called 'safety vans' is to reduce the speed of motorists on the road, is it not?

On top of that they are only placed on dangerous stretches of road. I feel obliged to warn other drivers the road ahead is dangerous.

Ronnie Beck

ba_barabus wrote: »

On top of that they are only placed on dangerous stretches of road. I feel obliged to warn other drivers the road ahead is dangerous.

Aure sure it's a small town too, everyone knows each other

brokenarms

DGT

Really? I just gave a particular instance where it seems to have made the road safer . I hope I was avoiding generalisation.

I drive for a living and spend my entire day on the road . Over the past 10 years I have had a clean licence . To answer your second question.

I have observed speed vans working in other cases and placed where fatal incidents have happened.

I also feel that if one does not notice a big speed van on the side of the road, they are hardly dialed into the road. And defiantly should not be speeding because of this.

I did a search on the word speed van and only found a few outdated threads on rants of those caught napping.

ba_barabus

brokenarms wrote: »

I also feel that if one does not notice a big speed van on the side of the road, they are hardly dialed into the road.

I'd rather drivers weren't preoccupied with trying to notice whats parked beside the road than whats on it

Nissan doctor

brokenarms wrote: »

DGT

Really? I just gave a particular instance where it seems to have made the road safer . I hope I was avoiding generalisation.

I drive for a living and spend my entire day on the road . Over the past 10 years I have had a clean licence . To answer your second question.

I have observed speed vans working in other cases and placed where fatal incidents have happened.

I also feel that if one does not notice a big speed van on the side of the road, they are hardly dialed into the road. And defiantly should not be speeding because of this.

I did a search on the word speed van at only found a few outdated threads on rants of those caught napping.

Search 'go safe' vans.

Busted Flat.

Do you feel speed van work.

Sounds a bit strange to me, reads like something from a B movie, from the 2nd world war, just before the leading actor is arrested by the Gestapo.

brokenarms

ba_barabus wrote: »

I'd rather drivers weren't preoccupied with trying to notice whats parked beside the road than whats on it

No . I don't think that's a good argument. In fact its a terrible argument .

The same van could be a parked car, with a child ready to run out after a ball.
A good driver in my opinion( and advanced driving testing) is ready for the unexpected and very aware of their environment .

Having blinkers on and speeding while doing it, is the recipe for disaster .

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Do you feel speed van work.

Sounds a bit strange to me, reads like something from a B movie, from the 2nd world war, just before the leading actor is arrested by the Gestapo.

After seeing results I do believe they work very well.

ba_barabus

brokenarms wrote: »

No . I don't think that's a good argument. In fact its a terrible argument .

The same van could be a parked car, with a child ready to run out after a ball.
A good driver in my opinion( and advanced driving testing) is ready for the unexpected and very aware of their environment .

Having blinkers on and speeding while doing it, is the recipe for disaster .

That's not a good argument either. If the van wasn't parked there your view of the child wouldn't be obscured.

If a child runs out in front of you at any speed you run the risk of hitting it due to excessive speed.

Lots of speed limits in Ireland aren't suitable for the roads either. I've never been pulled for speeding but I do find when I'm on roads where speed vans operate I spend more time concentrating on whats parked beside the road than whats on it. Nearly all of that time I'm not speeding either.

dgt

brokenarms wrote: »

DGT

Really? I just gave a particular instance where it seems to have made the road safer . I hope I was avoiding generalisation.

I drive for a living and spend my entire day on the road . Over the past 10 years I have had a clean licence . To answer your second question.

I have observed speed vans working in other cases and placed where fatal incidents have happened.

I also feel that if one does not notice a big speed van on the side of the road, they are hardly dialed into the road. And defiantly should not be speeding because of this.

I did a search on the word speed van and only found a few outdated threads on rants of those caught napping.

Damn straight I'm serious. That's just 1 instance. Money spinning to catch people out most of the time.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Read each of those carefully, especially Exhibit A. Follow the links in Exhibit A. View where they set up cameras. See where the black spots are. Look at my picture

Then come back here and try to explain to me and the other posters how that is justified and how that will save lives

Edit:

Here is a black spot outside Navan where many fatalities have occured. For that zone the van parks here, nowhere near that black spot.

Explain to me how that is saving lives. Explain to me why that isn't a money spinner. Tell me how the positioning of that van just insidethe 60 zoneat the bottom of a hill is justified

Because I'm getting very sick and tired of people saying they were brought in to save lives/I don't speed, when clearly they wern't

brokenarms

ba_barabus wrote: »

That's not a good argument either. If the van wasn't parked there your view of the child wouldn't be obscured.

If a child runs out in front of you at any speed you run the risk of hitting it due to excessive speed.

Lots of speed limits in Ireland aren't suitable for the roads either. I've never been pulled for speeding but I do find when I'm on roads where speed vans operate I spend more time concentrating on whats parked beside the road than whats on it. Nearly all of that time I'm not speeding either.

Ok. I guess the van does pose a small risk in itself. Never the less, a driver should be looking out

But in your second paragraph im confused a little with your statement.

If a child runs out and gets hit, If you are speeding you run a much higher risk of taking the child's life, than hitting the child under the limit.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html

This is my main argument here. The speed is posted. Clearly.
If you are driving correctly in a built up area , you should not be at any risk of getting a ticket.

ba_barabus

brokenarms wrote: »

The speed is posted.

It often isn't though.

ba_barabus

brokenarms wrote: »

If a child runs out and gets hit, If you are speeding you run a much higher risk of taking the child's life, than hitting the child under the limit.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html

You stand a high chance of hitting a child if you fail to see it in time because you are preoccupied with watching your speedo and the road sides.

A perfect example of this is the speed vans on the quays in Dublin with the crazy low limit of 30kph. Driver find it very hard to smoothly drive at the correct speed and the Go Safe vans are nearly a permanent fixture there.

brokenarms

dgt wrote: »

Damn straight I'm serious. That's just 1 instance. Money spinning to catch people out most of the time.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Read each of those carefully, especially Exhibit A. Follow the links in Exhibit A. View where they set up cameras. See where the black spots are. Look at my picture

Then come back here and try to explain to me and the other posters how that is justified and how that will save lives

Edit:

Here is a black spot outside Navan where many fatalities have occured. For that zone the van parks here, nowhere near that black spot.

Explain to me how that is saving lives. Explain to me why that isn't a money spinner. Tell me how the positioning of that van just insidethe 60 zoneat the bottom of a hill is justified

Because I'm getting very sick and tired of people saying they were brought in to save lives/I don't speed, when clearly they wern't

Im going to hold out on a reply to that till I get a chance to read it. Interesting reading for sure.
The scenario I posted was to my area and I am awaiting a response on how it worked from the Garda. I just want people to slow down before I have to go another funeral in the village.

You should not be sick and tired of peoples opinions . The road would be a whole lot worse if everyone was let run riot. Its good that these issues are being addressed. Be it the wrong or right ways.
Im not hear to piss you off. Dont get upset.

bitburger

DGT: Exhibit A is a broken link or the threads been removed?

edit:works now

Ronnie Beck

4/5 gatso vans I come across are positioned in places to catch people out. I've only seen two in places that looked actually dodgy. Normally there just at the base of a hill coming into a town to catch you out. The guards tell you that the stats are there but there is also the fact that petrol prices have increased, roads and cars are safer and alot of the boy racers have left or can no longer afford to operate as they did in the tiger. People are also better educated now on how to drive safely than they were years ago.

These Gatso van's do work to some extent IMO but could be ten times more effective if someone with half a brain was in charge of their positioning and the time of day the operate. Saving lives seems to be there secondary objective to making a few quid.

opinion guy

brokenarms wrote: »

Why people flash and warn dangerous drivers of the upcoming van?
Surly warning some bad drivers who are blatantly disrespecting the law and people around them need to be flashed before they hurt someone.

Does it matter ? End result is people slow down.

Do you feel these devices are there to increase revenue only?

Do you think they will reduce road deaths on our roads?

Hmm can I answer yes to both ??
They are of course there in part to earn revenue. But they do promote safety. Not by punishment, but by deterrent. Whether its by getting caught, almost getting caught, being flashed by another driver to slow down, or reading about a new cam spot on a website - they make people slow down.

I do believe that traffic cams and so called 'traffic calming' introduced over the last 10-15 years have done alot to improve road safety, although possbily motorways are as much to do with it.

You certainly do not see the kind of insane overtaking on national roads that you used to see pre-motorway. It used to be normal to see guys overtaking 4 or 5 cars and a truck/tractor at 130+kph in a single overtaking move on straight stretches between bends on N roads back in the day. You rarely see that now since the motorways came in. The N7 near the Limerick end of things used to be particularly bad for it if I recall correctly.

brokenarms

ba_barabus wrote: »

You stand a high chance of hitting a child if you fail to see it in time because you are preoccupied with watching your speedo and the road sides.

A perfect example of this is the speed vans on the quays in Dublin with the crazy low limit of 30kph. Driver find it very hard to smoothly drive at the correct speed and the Go Safe vans are nearly a permanent fixture there.

If you feel strongly about the position of that particular van, why not complain to the Garda about it. I do agree it is very hard to keep an eye on everything on the queys , but in the same breath your reaction time and stopping time should be greatly increased by the 30kph limit.

dgt

brokenarms wrote: »

Im going to hold out on a reply to that till I get a chance to read it. Interesting reading for sure.
The scenario I posted was to my area and I am awaiting a response on how it worked from the Garda. I just want people to slow down before I have to go another funeral in the village.

You should not be sick and tired of peoples opinions . The road would be a whole lot worse if everyone was let run riot. Its good that these issues are being addressed. Be it the wrong or right ways.
Im not hear to piss you off. Dont get upset.

I apologise if I came off narky but if you see some of the stupid positioning of these zones I encounter regularly you would lose patience fairly quick

My point being the intent was conveniently swept under the carpet at the first chance to make some extra money. All the wrong reasons to set up these zones

Plus I find on other roads adjourning the zoned roads drivers tend to go either twice as slow or twice as fast. Both of which are a menace to you or I in either direction; I blame the zoning for driver behaviour

bitburger wrote: »

DGT: Exhibit A is a broken link or the threads been removed?

Broken again? Let me fix that

I'll post it here so

dgt wrote: »

There's a stretch of road I use every day. It's been recently zoned. The only reason I see it was zoned is to force people to use the motorway.

Here to here

It's a grand big road, used to be a national route
No fatalities have occurred within the aforementioned zone
Further down the road where lots of fatalities have occurred the van sits just the far side of a crest in a gateway where cars can't see. No accidents or fatalities around there either, they're down the road where they're never at... Said blackspot

It's the same with the local R road, sits just inside the 60kmh zone at the bottom of a hill to catch people that haven't slowed down in time. Gobsh*te :rolleyes:

I'll conclude with a picture I dish out now and again

About that picture, yes I took that

challengemaster

brokenarms wrote: »

If a child runs out and gets hit, If you are speeding you run a much higher risk of taking the child's life, than hitting the child under the limit.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/killspeed.html

This is my main argument here. The speed is posted. Clearly.
If you are driving correctly in a built up area , you should not be at any risk of getting a ticket.

I've yet to see any speed van in a 50 or 60km/h limit area. Any 50/60 area I've seen signs for one are usually where some idiot in the county council has decided a 1km stretch of straight perfect road should have a lower limit, despite being on a 100km/h road otherwise.

Don't take my word for it though. Look at the garda website listing all the locations. Very easy to see most aren't 50km/h locations.

So, based the link you've posted above there's a pretty much 100% fatality rate for >=80km/h. Also those statistics aren't based on children. I'd be highly surprised if the 100% fatality rate wasn't 60km/h or lower.

So I hate to break it to you, but your argument of a child running out for the most part, is moot. If a child runs out in most places where these vans are (ignoring the bad parenting) - it won't matter a damn if you're speeding or not as you're already over the fatality threshold. Doing 105km/h vs 100km/h changes nothing. So I think it's fair to say the majority of these have nothing to do with pedestrian safety.

And you should really read what you're posting. That link is pretty much going against your speed kills argument.

bitburger

All I can say is i love the fact my motorbike has no number plate on the front :pac:

brokenarms

challengemaster wrote: »

I've yet to see any speed van in a 50 or 60km/h limit area. Any 50/60 area I've seen signs for one are usually where some idiot in the county council has decided a 1km stretch of straight perfect road should have a lower limit, despite being on a 100km/h road otherwise.

Don't take my word for it though. Look at the garda website listing all the locations. Very easy to see most aren't 50km/h locations.

So, based the link you've posted above there's a pretty much 100% fatality rate for >=80km/h. Also those statistics aren't based on children. I'd be highly surprised if the 100% fatality rate wasn't 60km/h or lower.

So I hate to break it to you, but your argument of a child running out for the most part, is moot. If a child runs out in most places where these vans are (ignoring the bad parenting) - it won't matter a damn if you're speeding or not as you're already over the fatality threshold. Doing 105km/h vs 100km/h changes nothing. So I think it's fair to say the majority of these have nothing to do with pedestrian safety.

And you should really read what you're posting. That link is pretty much going against your speed kills argument.

The fact that you have yet to see a speed van in 50 zone tells me that you don't drive much. 50kph zones safety cameras are all over the place. (where they should be IMO).

And you are right. Lets ignore bad parenting as you say, as its has zero relevance.

I did read this link and choose it because it had the UK government stats quoted at the start .
And also this had relevance to the argument .
Relatively few collisions between vehicles and pedestrians take place. When there are collisions, in most cases excellent avoiding actions will have been taken by most drivers and this has an enormous effect on the speed of impact. Average traffic speeds in 30 mph zones are still something over 30 mph. The Government would have us expect to see more than half the pedestrians in accidents killed. But the truth is that around 2% are killed, and only 0.7% of children. This is simply because in most cases drivers are able to brake to much lower speeds before impact. Even stop.

Which for the post it was related to , was very relevant .
But hey anyone could have write all that.


Im not to sure of your angle on this.
Is it to discredit my argument that speed cameras do work in built up areas? Or just my choice of links.
Do you think speed in a 50kph zone should be raised as pedestrians are dead anyway?

BitBurger. Those vans can catch you on both directions.

challengemaster

brokenarms wrote: »

The fact that you have yet to see a speed van in 50 zone tells me that you don't drive much. 50kph zones safety cameras are all over the place. (where they should be IMO).

Im not to sure of your angle on this.
Is it to discredit my argument that speed cameras do work in built up areas? Or just my choice of links.
Do you think speed in a 50kph zone should be raised as pedestrians are dead anyway?

That depends on your definition of much. I do at least 12k miles per year, some weekends I've easily clocked up quite a few hundred miles. In the last year of driving I haven't seen one garda checkpoint, and I can count the number of "safety" cameras I've seen on two hands. None of which were inside 50km/h limits.

As for my angle on this - you're pushing these cameras as safety cameras because of the pedestrian and more so child pedestrian aspect. Let me be clear, I have no issues with speed limits being enforced in these zones. My point is the majority of cameras aren't in operation in pedestrian zones. That's easily ascertainable from the map of locations provided by garda.ie.

Most of the cameras aren't even placed in "blackspot" areas either, a large majority are on straight 100km/h roads with perfect visibility and no history of fatalities, or other remarkably stupid areas (as has already been proven to you). And more than that, they're often hidden as much as is possible.

If the cameras were used as you seem to think they are - in majority for policing speed limits inside 50km/h zones in built up areas, then I believe nobody would have any issue with them, or with them being termed safety cameras.

With where they are currently in effect, it mainly points towards a revenue making exercise with a minority of the cameras in fatality spots as a red herring in case anyone should question their placement or purpose. Hence why people have an issue with them being termed safety cameras.

Also because of this, I don't feel they will have any positive effect on road deaths. In fact, probably the opposite. Once some people have passed a speed camera (under the limit) they will spend the rest of their journey well above the limit for one reason or another, as the likelihood of meeting another is almost zero. It also detracts attention from more important things, and then you have the fact that most people will stand on the brakes as soon as they see a camera, causing a hazard to other road users.

monkeypants

brokenarms wrote: »

I just want people to slow down before I have to go another funeral in the village.

People die all the time, outside of cars too. In their beds, in the bath, while watching TV or reading, shopping, etc. So you will have to go to the occasional funeral anyway, unless you have some kind of car crash funeral fetish and only attend those ones.

racso1975

Brokenarms I love your dedication to the subject and obviously your passion for the safety of the village.

But i would wager my house that your solution is short lived. The vans spent 2 days there. Currently people are on their best behaviour as a result but in a month?? or 2 months? will they even remember? Not many and you are back to square one again

Also as said above have yet to see the vans in a dangerous blackspot location. More likely to be hiding on a stretch of road that has a reduction in speed for a 100 metres and it's like shooting fish in a barrel

corktina

ba_barabus wrote: »

It often isn't though.

in a built up area it doesn't need to be but in my experience it usually is...pretty much always

keithclancy

IMO the a gradual scale makes more sense, having a penalty for 100 in a 50 the same as 90 in an 80 zone is crazy.

If you drive a lot you start to realise you should spend less time staring at the speedo and more time paying attention to the flow of traffic.

Makes no sense driving at 120 on the nose when joining the motorway when traffic could be flowing at 120-130, or indeed your speedo is not 100% accurate (i.e. showing your speed greater than it actually is)

Appropriate speed is the key (Depends on Vehicle type, road conditions, weather etc)

Bayting down a back road doing the speed limit while its lashing rash with poor visibility is just stupid.

Just my 2 cents, wouldn't see people that get speeding tickets or people that take measures to avoid speed detection as baby killers tbh.

Myself, I just set a speed where I don't have to use the brakes, If I have to use the brakes frequently, then I'm driving too fast.

djimi

I have no problem with the vans in theory, but as had already been said they are being used in areas that will generate the most revenue, not where an accident is most likely to occur. If safety was really the number one priority then we would be seeing permanent fixed cameras in villages such as the one described in the OP, not just random mobile vans. Or better still, there would be proper speed calming measures to ensure that people cannot speed, not just to catch them when they do (somebody getting a ticket 6 weeks down the line is not going to be much consolation to the mother of the child that they killed as they sped through the village...)

As with everything in this country, the idea is sound but the implementation is all wrong. Id have more respect for them if they just dropped the whole "safety" bull**** and just called it what it is. I have no issue with cameras set up to fine people who are speeding; the law is what it is and if you are breaking it then you cannot have any complaints if you get punished. It would sit much easier with me if they just came out and said that they are looking to financially punish those who dont obey speed limits, rather than trying to spin some obviously BS story about putting the vans in dangerous areas etc.

MugMugs

Do static cameras really work though? At least with a van you know it might be there you know it might not.

With a static, you're guaranteed it's there and so you adjust but straight after it can just press back on the speed.

djimi

MugMugs wrote: »

Do static cameras really work though? At least with a van you know it might be there you know it might not.

With a static, you're guaranteed it's there and so you adjust but straight after it can just press back on the speed.

The main difference I guess is that you know a static camera is always there, so you will slow down for it. Once you realise the van isnt there chances are you will relax and probably speed up.

Presumably the better system would be the average speed cameras that they use in England, where even after you pass the first camera you have to watch your speed until you pass the second camera. A system like this would be far more beneficial to a village like the one described in the OP than having a static camera/van, as you could have a camera at either end of the village, ensuring that people have to take it easy the whole way through, rather than just in one spot.

MugMugs

Agreed, Average speed cameras would work a lot better than what we currently have. I just watch people on the M1 at the speed camera after the Dunleer slip. About 300metres before traffic slows and then straight afterwards its back to speeding. An illogical system imo.

ManMade

MugMugs wrote: »

Do static cameras really work though? At least with a van you know it might be there you know it might not.

With a static, you're guaranteed it's there and so you adjust but straight after it can just press back on the speed.

They'd be impossible to put in the 'fish in a barrel' places that a lot of go safe cameras are in. Annoyed locals with a verity of tools and paints. And of course they won't make as much money.

It would make sense to put them on dangerous bends with warning of the cameras position. It wouldn't be a money racket but it would be a lot safer.

With the go safe vans at this stage you know where they are and you know where they never are.

djimi

ManMade wrote: »

With the go safe vans at this stage you know where they are and you know where they never are.

I think that this is the biggest issue with the current system; its all very predictable. The vans almost always park in the same spot, so on the roads that you drive regularly you know where to expect them. If they had a 10km stretch of road that was marked as a camera zone, and the van was parked at random spots along the road, then it would be a lot less predictable and a lot more effective.

Another quite effective change would be to randomly throw two vans in the same zone. I know logistically it would be difficult to do, but you would only need to see it once in any zone in the country to make you think twice about relaxing after you have passed the van!

MugMugs

Issue a lot of the time is where they can locate. On the N2 for instance they're restricted on where they can safely park so it's always the same spots. There have also been times when land owners have had them pushed off their land due to trespass like on the Dunleer Collon link road between the N2 and M1

Iwannahurl

brokenarms wrote: »

I, as a resident have recently complained to the Garda in relation to the speed of motorists entering my village .
Their answer last week was a speed detection van placed in a very visible spot for 2 days.
My reasons behind the complaint was a number of separate fatal accidents over the last two years . And numerous collisions where speed could have been a factor. I have a young family and feel the speed of cars to be a threat to my children's safety.
Observing the road now, it seems to have helped as the speed of the traffic has reduced even when the van is not there.

I would say it has been a complete success and made our 50kph zone a safer place.

I though this may be a good place to debate the issue and answer a few questions I still have.

Why people flash and warn dangerous drivers of the upcoming van?
Surly warning some bad drivers who are blatantly disrespecting the law and people around them need to be flashed before they hurt someone.

Do you feel these devices are there to increase revenue only?

Do you think they will reduce road deaths on our roads?

Congratulations on persuading the Garda Siochana to enforce the speed limit in your neighbourhood. You are absolutely right to campaign for your own family's safety, and for safer roads generally. So far I have failed to convince them to do the same in my 'village'. Unfortunately, despite the rampant speeding in the 50 km/h zones, nobody has died yet on most of the roads in my general neck of the woods. In a couple of locations where fatalities (and serious injuries) have occurred, AGS has actually said the roads are too dangerous for siting speed cameras.

As I have said elsewhere, in my view it is irrational to wait until fatalities occur before implementing speed surveillance (or traffic calming, now that I think of it). However, it seems the politics of speed cameras dictate that people must die first in order to justify enforcing speed limits.

The downside of posting this thread, OP, is that it provides another opportunity for airing the usual nonsense about speed control: safety cameras are purely for generating revenue, they can be dangerous, keeping an eye on your speed is the biggest risk, blah blah etc.

Never mind the begrudgers, OP, because the evidence is on your side. For example:

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1338/1/2004_31.pdf

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004607/do-speed-cameras-reduce-road-traffic-crashes-injuries-and-deaths

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/bmj-sci072611.php

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Speed_cameras.pdf

http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7487/331

djimi

MugMugs wrote: »

Issue a lot of the time is where they can locate. On the N2 for instance they're restricted on where they can safely park so it's always the same spots. There have also been times when land owners have had them pushed off their land due to trespass like on the Dunleer Collon link road between the N2 and M1

Ah yeah no I understand that. But equally I can think of several zones where there are plenty of places for them to pull in, yet they park in exactly the same spot each time.

djimi

Iwannahurl, I think you might want to reword one of the sentences in your first paragraph there...!

ljpg

bitburger wrote: »

All I can say is i love the fact my motorbike has no number plate on the front :pac:

fear not,the new "go safe" vans coming out will pick ya up front and back so unless your going to ride with no plates at all........

ManMade

ljpg wrote: »

fear not,the new "go safe" vans coming out will pick ya up front and back so unless your going to ride with no plates at all........

Muck on the plates is getting increasingly common now in rural areas

Iwannahurl

djimi wrote: »

Iwannahurl, I think you might want to reword one of the sentences in your first paragraph there...!

Unlikely. I generally choose my words very carefully.

It may be useful to consider the possibility of bitter irony.

ljpg

brokenarms wrote: »

I, as a resident have recently complained to the Garda in relation to the speed of motorists entering my village .
Their answer last week was a speed detection van placed in a very visible spot for 2 days.
My reasons behind the complaint was a number of separate fatal accidents over the last two years . And numerous collisions where speed could have been a factor. I have a young family and feel the speed of cars to be a threat to my children's safety.
Observing the road now, it seems to have helped as the speed of the traffic has reduced even when the van is not there.

I would say it has been a complete success and made our 50kph zone a safer place.

I though this may be a good place to debate the issue and answer a few questions I still have.

Why people flash and warn dangerous drivers of the upcoming van?
Surly warning some bad drivers who are blatantly disrespecting the law and people around them need to be flashed before they hurt someone.

Do you feel these devices are there to increase revenue only?

Do you think they will reduce road deaths on our roads?

speed camera vans in my opinion are for revenue gathering,plain and simple,if the garda wanted to slow people down in your village a more visable presence for a few days/checkpoints would have done the same job,how many drink drivers/uninsured drivers passed those speed vans in your village over those couple of days??? quite a few i imagine,any yet they drive on no bother at all,also the idea of a van parked on the side of the road to stop people speeding is in itself ridiculous,i mean if your in a hurry you slow down for the van...pass it and then speed up again!!!

Ilik Urgee

You are absolutely right to campaign for your own family's safety, and for safer roads generally. So far I have failed to convince them to do the same in my 'village'.


Never mind the begrudgers, OP, because the evidence is on your side. For example:


There should be a fine introduced to irresponsible parents who leave their kids play,walk or run anywhere on a public highway. See how the begrugery shoe fits then.

Nonsense to think this whole Go Safe wasn't at least partially if not mainly introduced to boost revenue. And here's the killer-they contract it out to a spainish outfit:P

H3llR4iser

Sorry, but I will always see automated traffic surveillance as just a way to make money; The whole basic concept of the speed cameras is that they are cost-effective, a purely commercial consideration. They will work briefly in certain circumstances and even so, their real effect on the rate of accidents is debatable as the data is polluted with external factors (cost of petrol, improved active safety of cars, improved roads, less idiots in souped-up Civics and so on).

The "we invest in safety" motto is purely PR bull****; They invest in cheap PERCEIVED road safety - slap a camera here and there, and Joe Average will think "ah, sure they're making the place safer!". The speed camera doesn't check for people breaking red lights; It doesn't check for drink driving or driving under the influence; It doesn't check distracted driving (reading the newspaper or applying makeup anyone? Saw 'em both and much more); It doesn't check failures to yield, nor turn indicators usage, nor unlicensed drivers, nor a car's road worthiness (and no, the NCT ain't enough).

Want to do proper road safety? Education and PATROLS. Someone goes through a speed camera, gets fined, he/she will pay it up and next time slow down JUST when they see a camera. Someone that gets an earful from the Traffic Corps on top of the fine, on the other hand, will feel like a proper cretin for quite some time and try to avoid a repeat of the experience.

Patrols on the side of the road or driving around can, also, check for any violations and stop drivers behaving erratically, holding the traffic up, not paying attention to the road and so on. All things a stupid speed camera will miss.

Iwannahurl

Ilik Urgee wrote: »

You are absolutely right to campaign for your own family's safety, and for safer roads generally. So far I have failed to convince them to do the same in my 'village'.

Never mind the begrudgers, OP, because the evidence is on your side. For example:

There should be a fine introduced to irresponsible parents who leave their kids play,walk or run anywhere on a public highway. See how the begrugery shoe fits then.

Nonsense to think this whole Go Safe wasn't at least partially if not mainly introduced to boost revenue. And here's the killer-they contract it out to a spainish outfit:P

That does not compute.

Just for clarification, can you define "public highway"? Does a street in a housing estate fall into that category?

djimi

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Unlikely. I generally choose my words very carefully.

It may be useful to consider the possibility of bitter irony.

Fair enough! Irony/sarcasm doesnt always come across as being obvious on internet forums...!

Matt Simis

I think the OP has a vindictive need to see others "punished" thats being legitimised. But anyway, as a former resident in a residential area where people speed (most crashed a lot) we found big fook off speed ramps are more effective as they work against unregistered/stolen/foreign/"muck on the plates" cars and work all year round, all times of the day and all weather conditions.

Your Speed Camera vans saves rhetoric was the poorer option available though Im sure the Government thanks you for some free cash from its citizens. Think of the children etc.

djimi

ljpg wrote: »

speed camera vans in my opinion are for revenue gathering,plain and simple,if the garda wanted to slow people down in your village a more visable presence for a few days/checkpoints would have done the same job,how many drink drivers/uninsured drivers passed those speed vans in your village over those couple of days??? quite a few i imagine,any yet they drive on no bother at all,also the idea of a van parked on the side of the road to stop people speeding is in itself ridiculous,i mean if your in a hurry you slow down for the van...pass it and then speed up again!!!

Im not really sure how having two Gardai on the road would change that? Okay yes you might catch people for other things, but if the exercise is to slow people down/catch people speeding then it makes little difference whether its a van or a manned checkpoint. I can only assume that the Gardai weighed up the effectiveness of having men standing at a checkpoint where they might catch nobody at all, when they could be used for a more useful purpose elsewhere.

Zcott

Matt Simis wrote: »

I think the OP has a vindictive need to see others "punished" thats being legitimised. But anyway, as a former resident in a residential area where people speed (most crashed a lot), big fook off speed ramps are more effective as they work against unregistered/stolen/foreign cars and work all year round, all times of the day and all weather conditions.

Your Speed Camera vans saves rhetoric was the poorer option available. Think of the children etc.

The argument against speed humps is that they unnecessarily slow down emergency vehicles too.

Ilik Urgee

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That does not compute.

Neither does your insinuation that I'm a begrudger.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Just for clarification, can you define "public highway"? Does a street in a housing estate fall into that category?

Am I allowed to park at the pavement outside your door? If yes, then yes to your question. See how impractical the whole lot gets now?

Same as the positioning as a lot of these Go Safe vans.