Go safe vans make almost 50000 euro profit per week.

dh0011

Why is this company making these mad profits while the state are making a loss as the fines generated do not cover the cost of the vans?

Mr Simpson

dh0011 wrote: »

Why is this company making these mad profits while the state are making a loss as the fines generated do not cover the cost of the vans?

Link?

The consortium is paid a set amount for x hours of detection. The fines are paid to RSA.

00833827

dh0011 wrote: »

Why is this company making these mad profits while the state are making a loss as the fines generated do not cover the cost of the vans?

ur gonna have to explain a bit more, who's making a profit (50K per year im guessing?) and where is this info from?

dh0011

Does it not seem a bit odd that the government are making a loss on this while a private operator is making massive profits every week.

Mr Simpson

Here's the link:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/consortium-operating-speed-camera-vans-turns-profit-of-48k-per-week-237406.html

Its fairly misleading, considering they have debts of 10.6m and have been making a pre-tax loss up to now

Their fines generated circa €5.7m last year.

dh0011

They might have debts but these are surely from the purchase of the vans. These will still be worth something when the contract with the government ends.

Also, when this contract is up GoSafe will be likely to be the preferred bidder again as they wont have to purchase equipment like alternative bids.

Mr Simpson

dh0011 wrote: »

They might have debts but these are surely from the purchase of the vans. These will still be worth something when the contract with the government ends.

Also, when this contract is up GoSafe will be likely to be the preferred bidder again as they wont have to purchase equipment like alternative bids.

There are other factors involved though (I'm not a fan of GoSafe vans btw).

A fatal accident costs the state over €1 million per accident. Speeding accounts for over 40% of fatal accidents.

If the vans save 1 life;

A) They have saved a life by slowing someone down

They have saved the state over €1m

Profits of the RSA & GoSafe consortium aren't the be all and end all

dh0011

You are missing my point. Why werent these vans given to gardai or civilians working with in an garda siochana and the state could make significant savings.

Anan1

dh0011 wrote: »

You are missing my point. Why werent these vans given to gardai or civilians working with in an garda siochana and the state could make significant savings.

Why do you think that the state could do the same job for less money?

pa990

Gosafe is a private company, set up with the sole intention of turning a profit.

I don't think at any stage was it touted as a not for profit charity.

Gosafe put in a price for a job, and thet do thst job snd make a profit, What's so different about the process than any other tendering process.

pa990

dh0011 wrote: »

You are missing my point. Why werent these vans given to gardai or civilians working with in an garda siochana and the state could make significant savings.

Because sometimes it's easier /cheaper in the long run, to outsource to a contractor, rather than having the responsibility for labour and equipment.

Anyway, why have a garda sitting in the van, when he could be freed up for other tasks

dh0011

Is there a reason the state couldn't have done this at the same cost?

pa990

dh0011 wrote: »

Is there a reason the state couldn't have done this at the same cost?

The state is an inefficient , burocratic machine.
The best decision was to outsource the job.

Its not that unusual, plenty of speed cam/red light cam operations are outsourced globally

dh0011

The state is making savings all over the place and although the state sometimes gets things wrong in a lot of cases the state is quite efficient. This doesnt get printed in the papers.

Just so you know an post, the esb, bord gais and the NTMA are all well run and efficient state institutions.

corktina

would not fixed cameras á lá UK been a cheaper option? One Van could have serviced dozens of them and you never know if they actually are in use and have to slow for each one, whereas with the vans, you approach a site cautiously, and if theres no van the foot goes back down.

dh0011

it would have made sense to me

Anan1

corktina wrote: »

would not fixed cameras á lá UK been a cheaper option? One Van could have serviced dozens of them and you never know if they actually are in use and have to slow for each one, whereas with the vans, you approach a site cautiously, and if theres no van the foot goes back down.

You'd have Neandarthals vandalising them and slapping each other on the back down the pub all the while going 'huh-huh-huh-huh-huh'.

average_runner

dh0011 wrote: »

The state is making savings all over the place and although the state sometimes gets things wrong in a lot of cases the state is quite efficient. This doesnt get printed in the papers.

Just so you know an post, the esb, bord gais and the NTMA are all well run and efficient state institutions.

AN Post makes a lost.
Esb and Board Gais are not run by the state, they semi-state companies run privately with their own board. They give a small % of profits to the government.

average_runner

corktina wrote: »

would not fixed cameras á lá UK been a cheaper option? One Van could have serviced dozens of them and you never know if they actually are in use and have to slow for each one, whereas with the vans, you approach a site cautiously, and if theres no van the foot goes back down.

You answered the question yourself. People drive more cautiously in areas now because there could be a van, if they knew it wasnt there the foot be down all the time.

TheChizler

corktina wrote: »

would not fixed cameras á lá UK been a cheaper option? One Van could have serviced dozens of them and you never know if they actually are in use and have to slow for each one, whereas with the vans, you approach a site cautiously, and if theres no van the foot goes back down.

Flexibility I presume? Can easily designate a new stretch of road as a camera area if the surveys indicate it would be useful. I imagine it's more efficient to have one really good camera in a van with an operator than loads everywhere needing constant maintenance and getting vandalised. At least having the van and operator acts as a deterrent to vandalism, normally. One camera covers many roads and you have the benefit that people will probably exercise caution as they enter the area, even if only initially.

dh0011

An post make a loss as the government is keen to keep little post offices in the middle of nowhere open. This is a good thing as it provides a service to older people in rural areas.

There would be no need for a service element to the state running speed cameras itself. Also no reason why it couldnt have been a semi state enterprise.

corktina

average_runner wrote: »

You answered the question yourself. People drive more cautiously in areas now because there could be a fan, if they knew it wasnt there the foot be down all the time.

yes, until they see there's no van there...if the camera is stood there, you would have to obey the limit up to and past the camera until you go round the next bend.

corktina

Anan1 wrote: »

You'd have Neandarthals vandalising them and slapping each other on the back down the pub all the while going 'huh-huh-huh-huh-huh'.

doesnt happen in the UK afaik, why would it happen here?

dr.fuzzenstein

average_runner wrote: »

You answered the question yourself. People drive more cautiously in areas now because there could be a fan, if they knew it wasnt there the foot be down all the time.

The only problem is that the camera vans have found the spots where they are badly needed purely for the purpose of saving lives make the most money and tend not to move from them.
I know the 10 or so spots where they are around Clare/Limerick and, without fail, that's where they are.
And one place you will never see them is tiny, windy, dangerous backroads. All goes there...(sometimes there is Gards there, like every 10 years)

average_runner

dh0011 wrote: »

An post make a loss as the government is keen to keep little post offices in the middle of nowhere open. This is a good thing as it provides a service to older people in rural areas.

There would be no need for a service element to the state running speed cameras itself. Also no reason why it couldnt have been a semi state enterprise.

So how can An post be well run efficient then?

Because anything the government runs, is usually a disaster zone.

Padraig Mor

Mr Simpson wrote: »

Speeding accounts for over 40% of fatal accidents.

No it doesn't. It's about 5%.

average_runner

corktina wrote: »

yes, until they see there's no van there...if the camera is stood there, you would have to obey the limit up to and past the camera until you go round the next bend.

But if you knew there was never a camera there you wouldn't slow down and the maintenance fee for them would be high

average_runner

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The only problem is that the camera vans have found the spots where they are badly needed purely for the purpose of saving lives make the most money and tend not to move from them.
I know the 10 or so spots where they are around Clare/Limerick and, without fail, that's where they are.
And one place you will never see them is tiny, windy, dangerous backroads. All goes there...(sometimes there is Gards there, like every 10 years)

There in some good spots too, a few back roads around Charleville and Limerick when i was there

Mr Simpson

Padraig Mor wrote: »

No it doesn't. It's about 5%.

Here's just 1 link, I can list more if you want

http://www.kildareroadsafety.ie/index.php?page=road_safety_advice-speeding.html&PHPSESSID=5744a072ae435963257c306b6f76ba9d

corktina

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The only problem is that the camera vans have found the spots where they are badly needed purely for the purpose of saving lives make the most money and tend not to move from them.
I know the 10 or so spots where they are around Clare/Limerick and, without fail, that's where they are.
And one place you will never see them is tiny, windy, dangerous backroads. All goes there...(sometimes there is Gards there, like every 10 years)

well one of the reasons you don't have them on windy backroads is that they have to be sited off the road in a safe position. Also the roads may be windy but that probably means that speeds are lower than the limit generally.

As far as I can see, you only normally see the vans on N roads and they are sited at what we used to call Blackspots,

Anan1

corktina wrote: »

doesnt happen in the UK afaik, why would it happen here?

I think it does. It's a much better idea than vans in principle, though.

Padraig Mor

Mr Simpson wrote: »

Here's just 1 link, I can list more if you want

http://www.kildareroadsafety.ie/index.php?page=road_safety_advice-speeding.html&PHPSESSID=5744a072ae435963257c306b6f76ba9d

Don't bother. That link (as is hugely common) quotes the stats incorrectly. The RSA do not publish any figure for percentage of fatal accidents with speeding (driving over the limit) as the main cause. Without checking the exact figure, you'll most likely find that the supposed 40% rate is actually due to "driving in excess of a safe speed for the conditions" (which is NOT the same thing as breaking the speed limit) being attributed as a "contributory factor" (but not primary causative factor) in 40% of fatal crashes. The most common CAUSE of fatal crashes in Ireland is one vehicle going to the wrong side of the road (the primary cause of circa 40% of fatal crashes). Driving at an unsafe speed (which can include speeds below the speed limit) is the primary cause of ~8% of fatal crashes. Based on these figures, and similar data from the UK, we can extrapolate that c. 4 - 5% of fatal crashes here were primarily caused by driving at a speed in excess of the limit.

H3llR4iser

Mr Simpson wrote: »

Here's just 1 link, I can list more if you want

http://www.kildareroadsafety.ie/index.php?page=road_safety_advice-speeding.html&PHPSESSID=5744a072ae435963257c306b6f76ba9d

The problem is that the "speed causes crashes" as a statement is extremely debatable. Speed, on its own, causes nothing - it's the carelessness and incompetence of the driver that causes the crash. Doing 140 km/h on a stretch of low traffic motorway or on a main road with intersections are very different things yet, from a "speed camera's" point of view, it's mostly the same.

Broad generalizations bring nothing good, and that's the case with speed cameras too - "Speed kills!", and we get white vans sitting at the side of a downhill stretch of motorway, were it's easier to catch drivers going above the limit, rather than at a nasty blind corner, where it's more likely for a crash to happen.

TheChizler

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The problem is that the "speed causes crashes" as a statement is extremely debatable. Speed, on its own, causes nothing - it's the carelessness and incompetence of the driver that causes the crash. Doing 140 km/h on a stretch of low traffic motorway or on a main road with intersections are very different things yet, from a "speed camera's" point of view, it's mostly the same.

You might as well say, it's not speed that kills, it's the sudden stop.

Definitely driving at a speed well in excess of surrounding traffic is dangerous.

markpb

dh0011 wrote: »

Just so you know an post, the esb, bord gais and the NTMA are all well run and efficient state institutions.

Compared to what? Your statement is just as meaningless as anyone claiming everything the state does is inefficient.

dr.fuzzenstein

Mr Simpson wrote: »

Here's just 1 link, I can list more if you want

http://www.kildareroadsafety.ie/index.php?page=road_safety_advice-speeding.html&PHPSESSID=5744a072ae435963257c306b6f76ba9d

The way these things work:
Let's list all fatal accidents. Then tie them to this weeks cause. How many of these cars might have strayed above the speedlimit? Double that number and now you have your scientifically proven number of accidents cause by speed.
Next week alcohol, after that phones, after that who knows.
Accidents are (to my mind) caused by people not paying attention and I am willing to bet at least 23.56% of accidents are caused by people saying "well, I'm in the right, so I'm not braking/swerving"

HurtLocker

corktina wrote: »

doesnt happen in the UK afaik, why would it happen here?

There are no enforcement cameras that near to me. Thankfully. There is however a speed camera that flashes 50kmh. If you go over 50. When it was put up about 4 years ago some locals thought it could give out points so they covered the camera with a plastic bag.

Fortunately it doesn't and it spends more time flashing than not. I wouldn't personally attack a camera but I wouldn't like to see what would happen if a few of these individuals received 2 points and a fine. Probably similar to what they do to the bus shelters every Friday night. Tear them to pieces.

ironclaw

OSI wrote: »

Because it happened before. There used to be speed camera outside Kells that was burnt out of its shell.

Fixed cameras will just become known and people will slow down anyway just for that section (i.e. The only on the M1). Only way to do fixed cameras is with point to point average time which is more common in the UK and continent. I wouldn't mind them being introduced in Ireland on the M50 if it helped deal with 'middle lane' syndrome in the same sweep.

H3llR4iser

TheChizler wrote: »

Definitely driving at a speed well in excess of surrounding traffic is dangerous.

Exactly, and that is the key of the matter. Going at 140 km/h on a deserted motorway is nowhere as dangerous as overtaking a line of slow cars at 95 km/h on a national road; Only, in the first case you're easy prey of a camera, in the second you will most likely not incur in any issue.

It is also equally dangerous for somebody to creep down the motorway at 60 km/h, as the speed differential with the other vehicles will be significant...yet, it's not something that is enforced in any way.

ironclaw wrote: »

Fixed cameras will just become known and people will slow down anyway just for that section (i.e. The only on the M1). Only way to do fixed cameras is with point to point average time which is more common in the UK and continent. I wouldn't mind them being introduced in Ireland on the M50 if it helped deal with 'middle lane' syndrome in the same sweep.

The "middle lane" syndrome? Average speed checks don't help at all, actually make things worse. Since the "Speed tutor" system has been introduced in Italy, it's anarchy on the motorways (even more than before). People hog the overtaking lane all the time as they feel that, being the speed constantly monitored, nobody is allowed to go faster and therefore they can drive wherever they want...go figure.

ironclaw

Mr Simpson wrote: »

Here's just 1 link, I can list more if you want

http://www.kildareroadsafety.ie/index.php?page=road_safety_advice-speeding.html&PHPSESSID=5744a072ae435963257c306b6f76ba9d

Stats on that page are miles off.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84882279&postcount=32

Saab Ed

average_runner wrote: »

Because anything the government runs, is usually a disaster zone.

Just look at the country

blackwhite

dh0011 wrote: »

The state is making savings all over the place and although the state sometimes gets things wrong in a lot of cases the state is quite efficient. This doesnt get printed in the papers.

Just so you know an post, the esb, bord gais and the NTMA are all well run and efficient state institutions.

I have audited two of the listed entities and "efficient" is not a word that I would use to describe them.

They might be more efficient that some Government departments, but when compared to a well-run private-sector operation they are still grossly inefficient.
It's quite easy to make a profit when you are operating a near-monopoly.