Gardai operating 'gotcha' speed traps.

mada999

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Will they get a clap on the back from the Troika for raising €25,680 on National Slow Down Day this year?*

At that rate "our lads" will have the national debt paid off in 20,483 years. Way to go guys!







*Assuming that a speeding fine is €80. And stays at that level for 20,483 years, now that I think of it...

if we started on the spot fines for northern reg drivers (like they do for us when we speed up north) we'd raise billions....

ScumLord

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I know about the way you describe your driving. A sample of your attitude as expressed on Boards:

Clearly a joke, I don't have to explain jokes to you now too do I?

You have tried to define unsafe speed (in 50-60 km/h zones iirc) as "one where you can't control the car anymore",

I didn't, you've simply insisted that's what I meant despite every post to the contrary. I've said going over 60kph won't automatically make your car unsafe and that I wouldn't consider a car unsafe, from the point of view of driving it, until you're up at 100kph or more. On a road system that has no access for pedestrians it's pretty difficult to cause an accident that going to injure the occupants of the car in a serious way.

You have claimed, again without backing it up, that rigorous and persistent speed enforcement "won't make the roads safer".

I haven't, in fact in my last post I discussed how much better traffic enforcement is over the UK as it's much stricter and properly enforced.

Can you say whether or not these statements are true or false:

Sure

1. Speed cameras save lives.

I don't see how, they don't stop people speeding they catch people speeding. If people knew that a camera would be at a particular spot (permanently) you could argue it's preventative, because no one's going to speed if they know there's a camera up the road to catch them. The mobile ones just catch people speeding the odd time.

2. Speed is the most important risk factor to regulate.

I would disagree and say proper development of driving skills is much more important.

3. Speed is always present as a risk factor.

Of course it's a factor, everything's a factor.

4. Higher speed increases the risk of a casualty crash.

Not necessarily, there are many other determining factors. You use speed loosly as well, going 1kph faster isn't going to increase your risk to much is it?

5. Even small increases in speed can significantly increase risk.

Meh.. If your paying attention to the traffic and watching out for vehicles pulling out in front of you you should be fine.

6. Reducing average speed has a major impact on the number of casualties, far more than any other individual risk factor.

Again, I'd say education trumps here.

_Kaiser_

EdCastle wrote: »

If all cars are having to brake suddenly then it is obvious that everyone is speeding............hence the need for a greater number of speed detection vans and fines for those who flaunt the law. People who break the law need to start coughing up.

Wrong.. because even when people driving at the limit or below it, many of them will still hit the brakes anyway - it's the same sort who bring a motorway to a crawl so they can have a good look at the fender bender on the other side.

The standard of driving out there is terrible and most accidents (as proven by the statistics) have very little to do with speeding and more to do with being on the wrong side of the road at the time, drink/drug driving etc (none of which camera vans will prevent) and I'd also say there's a percentage that are suicides (those single occupant, no other cars involved fatalities you hear about) by poor unfortunates who can't see any other way out.

But this thread is going in circles at this stage so I'll leave it at that.

Overheal

Roger_007 wrote: »

I drive at a speed that is safe given the road type and driving conditions. I don't keep looking at the speedo all the time because that would be unsafe.

bull****. It takes less than a second to glance down to verify your speed and it doesn't take a genius driver to inherently have a feel for the speed your going, if you've been operating your vehicle for any length of time. To not even have a foggy what you were going is rather dumb.

I agree though that speed traps are a problem in many legal jurisdictions. In most cases they aren't for the enforcement of safety but a way for struggling municipalities to sustain their revenue. Still not an excuse to not know what speed your driving at, or the limit on the road.

Roger_007

Overheal wrote: »

.......... It takes less than a second to glance down to verify your speed and it doesn't take a genius driver to inherently have a feel for the speed your going, if you've been operating your vehicle for any length of time.....................

That is a contradictory statement. If you inherently know your speed, then there is no need to keep looking at the speedo. Each 'glance' as you call it means you travel about 15 meters, (at 60kph), while not looking at the road. In busy traffic that is not a good idea. You do not blindly follow rules to the letter when by doing so, you are creating a dangerous situation. THAT would be dumb.
Your attitude reminds me of a incident a few weeks ago where ambulance personnel refused to attend a sick person who was on a moored boat because they had no lifejackets. I am sure you would applaud those guys; after all they obeyed the rules....didn't they?

Jimoslimos

Overheal wrote: »

bull****. It takes less than a second to glance down to verify your speed and it doesn't take a genius driver to inherently have a feel for the speed your going, if you've been operating your vehicle for any length of time. To not even have a foggy what you were going is rather dumb.

Even experienced drivers can misjudge their speed and stopping distance depending on varying traffic conditions around them. It's why other methods of providing information to drivers are also used, rumble strips and chevrons painted on the road for example.

Traffic travelling at 130kph whilst maintaining safe braking distance is far safer than tailgating at 100kph. Which one does a speed camera pick up?

wil

EdCastle wrote: »

What's a 'fast limit road'? ..ridiculous statement!

The speed limit isn't a target....it's there as a guideline, you are supposed to maintain a speed that allows you to adjust in the event of an emergency. What happens if you have a blowout in a built up area or on a motorway, combined with speed many an inexperienced driver will lose control. Speed only adds to the impending carnage.

If all cars are having to brake suddenly then it is obvious that everyone is speeding............hence the need for a greater number of speed detection vans and fines for those who flaunt the law. People who break the law need to start coughing up.

You had made some reasonable points previously but this post shows very little experience of driving and JAT made a number of very valid points..
Among them. it is known, ask the police themselves, that when people see patrol cars, they often get distracted, take their mind of proper driving, monotask by concentrating on the patrol car. It is a normal reaction by most lawabiding individuals and not necessarily indicative of excess speeding. Exception perhaps if you are the type of inexperienced driver who crawls along the motorway thinking exerybody else is a bad driver except you or the lunatic who doesnt care either way.
That type of driver should be dealt with in just the same way as those using excess speed. In the UK they do get pulled over as it is often a sign of an unaccompanied learner driver, drugs/alcohol or someone without licence/insurance or nct.

I've already said it in previous posts, excess speed is very much NOT the only issue on our roads and only a poor, inexperienced or blind driver could think so.

Road deaths here havent been halved over the last decade by reducing speed, but by improving driving skills and slowly changing attitudes to responsible road use.
If anything, speeds have increased as our limits went up on many of our roads, Also we now have more motorways and speed limit enforcement is little more noticeable than it was a decade ago.

Many parts of the UK the most cctv'ed country in the world are now switching off speed cameras. They havent proven to be as effective as once thought. And they were only introduced AFTER they had ALL the other constituents for safer driving already in place. And that was long before we even thought of requiring people to learn BEFORE using the roads.

BognarRegis

wil wrote: »

Among them. it is known, ask the police themselves, that when people see patrol cars, they often get distracted, take their mind of proper driving, monotask by concentrating on the patrol car. It is a normal reaction by most lawabiding individuals and not necessarily indicative of excess speeding.

This provides a good argument for speed compliance operations to be in unmarked vehicles without prior notice.

wil

BognarRegis wrote: »

This provides a good argument for speed compliance operations to be in unmarked vehicles without prior notice.

Thats a reasonable observation and yes they do use unmarked cars. However concentrating on speed above all the other many factors as you might have read in the rest of my post is not reasonable.

Lets look at 2012.
25%:eek: (a quarter for some people) of deaths happened between 4 and 6pm - 2 hours of the SLOWEST time on the roads, when it's generally not possible to even reach the speed limit. So thats when people are tired, trying to get home after work and not usually pis over the alcohol limit.

Tiredness is a much bigger killer on the road than anyone realises, I have felt it myself and it is the suspected cause (difficult to prove) of many night time SVAs. It is known that these hours are a low period on the circadian rhythm. I know one young fatality who fell asleep at the wheel on the way to playing a match after work.
It's a complicated one to address but if employers had a bit more duty of care or flexihours were a bit more the norm, who knows.

30% of fatalities were under 25 - way overrepresented, possibly a lot to do with inexperience at a guess - but I dont know how many were driving
11% were in Galway- very overrepresented - perhaps a young population factor
0% were in Leitrim the safest county it would seem.
Actually being male (67%) would seem to be the biggest risk factor of all.
Yes these are stats, open to many interpretations, but there are trends.

I'll say it again, reduced speeds weren't what got us from 400 deaths per year to under 180 in a decade.
Training was the single biggest factor that changed in that period.

However the biggest speed freaks are those who blame it for everything.
Sad.

Iwannahurl

ScumLord wrote: »

I didn't, you've simply insisted that's what I meant despite every post to the contrary. I've said going over 60kph won't automatically make your car unsafe and that I wouldn't consider a car unsafe, from the point of view of driving it, until you're up at 100kph or more. On a road system that has no access for pedestrians it's pretty difficult to cause an accident that going to injure the occupants of the car in a serious way.

I haven't, in fact in my last post I discussed how much better traffic enforcement is over the UK as it's much stricter and properly enforced.

Most of your arguments around these points are sheer sophistry, in this case argument by repeated contradiction, and therefore not worth pursuing. I guess anyone bothered enough to read it can make up their own mind.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

rigorous and persistent enforcement is needed.

ScumLord wrote: »

That won't solve anything, it won't make the roads safer.

ScumLord wrote: »

We were talking specifically about a low speed limit of 50 - 60klm. Breaking those speed limits isn't going to make your car unsafe (bar in a pedestrian area), I added that you'd need to be up near 100klm or even more (it all depends, there is no arbitrary speed at which ever car becomes unstable) before you could say your car is even becoming unsafe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

So, what about the questions I asked.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you say whether or not these statements are true or false:

1. Speed cameras save lives.
2. Speed is the most important risk factor to regulate.
3. Speed is always present as a risk factor.
4. Higher speed increases the risk of a casualty crash.
5. Even small increases in speed can significantly increase risk.
6. Reducing average speed has a major impact on the number of casualties, far more than any other individual risk factor.

You ignored this bit, I see:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If you believe that any of the above statements are false, can you point to any authoritative source that shows why that is the case?

Let's look at your answers.

ScumLord wrote: »

1. I don't see how, they don't stop people speeding they catch people speeding. If people knew that a camera would be at a particular spot (permanently) you could argue it's preventative, because no one's going to speed if they know there's a camera up the road to catch them. The mobile ones just catch people speeding the odd time.

Incorrect. Repeated studies in various jurisdictions have found that speed surveillance reduces both crashes and casualties. A few sources of such factual information below.
http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/speed%20camera%20effectiveness%20-%20allsop%20-%20report.pdf
http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7487/331
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004607/do-speed-cameras-reduce-road-traffic-crashes-injuries-and-deaths
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/muarc204.pdf

ScumLord wrote: »

2. I would disagree and say proper development of driving skills is much more important.

Incorrect. "If government wants to develop a road transport system in which nobody is killed or permanently injured, speed is the most important factor to regulate." Source: https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/T%C3%98I%20rapporter/2004/740-2004/740-2004.pdf

ScumLord wrote: »

3. Of course it's a factor, everything's a factor.

Question not answered. The point is that speed is always present as a risk factor, and that its relative importance is paramount. That cannot be said of other risk factors to the same extent, or indeed at all in some cases. "The mean speed of traffic is the most important risk factor for road accident fatalities. It has a more powerful effect on road accident fatalities than any other known risk factor, including the overall amount of travel. Speed as a risk factor is always present. Many other risk factors are, like darkness or a slippery road surface, not always present." Source: https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/T%C3%98I%20rapporter/2004/740-2004/740-2004.pdf

ScumLord wrote: »

4. Not necessarily, there are many other determining factors. You use speed loosly as well, going 1kph faster isn't going to increase your risk to much is it?

Question not addressed adequately. "The relationship between speed and road accidents has been studied extensively and is very clear: the faster the speed, the greater the probability of a crash and the severity of crashes. While the risk linked to speed varies across road types, a sound rule of thumb is that, on average, a 1% reduction in the mean speed of traffic leads to a 2% reduction in injury accidents, a 3% reduction in severe injury accidents and a 4% in fatal accidents." Source: http://www.etsc.eu/documents/Managing%20Speed%20Towards%20Safe%20and%20Sustainable%20Road%20Transport.pdf
See also: http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/ACC672-Down-with-speed.pdf

ScumLord wrote: »

5. Meh.. If your paying attention to the traffic and watching out for vehicles pulling out in front of you you should be fine.

Incorrect. The risk of a casualty crash doubles with each 5 km/h increase in speed in an urban 60 km/h speed limit environment. Source: http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/RESPEED.PDF
See also: http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Speed.pdf

ScumLord wrote: »

6. Again, I'd say education trumps here.

Incorrect. Reducing average speed has a far greater safety effect than any other measure, including alcohol and seatbelts. A 10% reduction in total traffic volume would be expected to result in a 6.5% reduction in road fatalities. The same decrease in the level of drink-driving would reduce fatalities by 1%, and if the non-wearing of seatbelts was similarly reduced road deaths would drop by 0.8%. In contrast, a 10% reduction in the mean speed of traffic can be estimated to reduce the number of road accident fatalities by 38%. Source: https://www.toi.no/article17882-29.html

To put it another way, an uneducated fool driving at 30 km/h poses far less of a risk than the same fool driving at 80 km/h. Likewise some wiseacre in a high-end car equipped with traction control, ABS and the likes travelling at 65 km/h in a 50 km/h zone poses a higher risk than an equivalent driver in an equivalent car travelling at or below the speed limit.

That is the point of both speed limits and speed limit enforcement, neither of which are meant to discriminate between the "education" level of drivers or the specification of their cars. All other things being equal, higher speed means higher risk, and that fundamental point on its own is sufficient to justify rigorous enforcement.

You repeatedly emphasise education above enforcement as a means of making our roads safer. If the above set of questions were for an exam I'd fail you.

Iwannahurl

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The standard of driving out there is terrible and most accidents (as proven by the statistics) have very little to do with speeding and more to do with being on the wrong side of the road at the time, drink/drug driving etc (none of which camera vans will prevent) and I'd also say there's a percentage that are suicides (those single occupant, no other cars involved fatalities you hear about) by poor unfortunates who can't see any other way out.

But this thread is going in circles at this stage so I'll leave it at that.

Threads on speeding and related matters in various Boards forums end up going round in circles because the same pseudo-scientific claptrap and mealy-mouthed excuses are rehashed again and again with no meaningful attempt made to actually engage with the actual evidence.

wil wrote: »

Many parts of the UK the most cctv'ed country in the world are now switching off speed cameras. They havent proven to be as effective as once thought. And they were only introduced AFTER they had ALL the other constituents for safer driving already in place. And that was long before we even thought of requiring people to learn BEFORE using the roads.

Roger_007 wrote: »

That is a contradictory statement. If you inherently know your speed, then there is no need to keep looking at the speedo. Each 'glance' as you call it means you travel about 15 meters, (at 60kph), while not looking at the road. In busy traffic that is not a good idea. You do not blindly follow rules to the letter when by doing so, you are creating a dangerous situation. THAT would be dumb.

The purpose of all the baloney and hogwash is to distract attention from the established facts and to find any and every way possible to justify driving at whatever speed we feel like whenever we feel like it.

Lower speed limits and greater use of speed cameras are typically derided as punitive anti-motorist revenue-raising Government conspiracies by those who really just enjoy driving fast, and who believe that their better "education", faster than average reactions, superior judgment and greater driving skill give them the right to decide their own speed. It seems that the alleged right to drive at a speed of our own choosing has become more important than the right of other road users to stay alive, to avoid being maimed for life or even just not to feel intimidated by traffic.

Padkir

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Question not addressed adequately.

Who the **** do you think you are???? "Not addressed adequately", you're not a ****in lecturer!

wil

Padkir wrote: »

Who the **** do you think you are???? "Not addressed adequately", you're not a ****in lecturer!

Reckon speed induced road rage, fine line between therapeutic and abuse.
Probably best to follow police advised best practice and ignore.

Iwannahurl

Padkir wrote: »

Who the **** do you think you are???? "Not addressed adequately", you're not a ****in lecturer!

Touched a sensitive nerve have we?

You may have noticed those comments were directed at someone who claimed that "education" trumps enforcement in the area of road safety.

Padkir

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Touched a sensitive nerve have we?

You may have noticed those comments were directed at someone who claimed that "education" trumps enforcement in the area of road safety.

You need both, but education is clearly better than enforcement!

Which would you rather on the road?

1m drivers who haven't a clue how to control their vehicle but it's ok because none of them go over the speed limit.

Or 1m well educated drivers, albeit you catch plenty of them for speeding?

Banjo String

Get yourself plates made up in a motor factor with the details the same as the mobile vans.


drive past van at 140kmh

repeatedly.

Van fines itself multiple times.


Result.

Iwannahurl

Padkir wrote: »

You need both, but education is clearly better than enforcement!

Which would you rather on the road?

1m drivers who haven't a clue how to control their vehicle but it's ok because none of them go over the speed limit.

Or 1m well educated drivers, albeit you catch plenty of them for speeding?

We already have both, as well as engineering measures, and no developed country relies only or even mainly on one strategy to make roads safer.

The options you suggest don't reflect reality. It remains the case that, all other things being equal, higher speed leads to higher risk. That fact on its own justifies rigorously enforced speed limits (as well as reduced speed limits in urban and residential areas).

Banjo String

Iwannahurl wrote: »

We already have both, as well as engineering measures, and no developed country relies only or even mainly on one strategy to make roads safer.

The options you suggest don't reflect reality. It remains the case that, all other things being equal, higher speed leads to higher risk. That fact on its own justifies rigorously enforced speed limits (as well as reduced speed limits in urban and residential areas).

I bet you've never ever broken a speed limit in your life?

Iwannahurl

Broken records are my speciality.

Banjo String

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Broken records are my speciality.

So I see :pac:

Ronin247

Iwannahurl wrote: »

We already have both, as well as engineering measures, and no developed country relies only or even mainly on one strategy to make roads safer.

The options you suggest don't reflect reality. It remains the case that, all other things being equal, higher speed leads to higher risk. That fact on its own justifies rigorously enforced speed limits (as well as reduced speed limits in urban and residential areas).

In the UK which has roughly the same speed limits as Ireland they have a 20%+ better record on fatalities/million in 2012 than us and roughly half the European average. Apart from Malta, which I would discount due to size, they have the best record.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-236_en.htm

The proper use of speed limits and proper enforcement of them makes a vast difference..... its the old story..its not the size of your speed limit, it is how you use it

Iwannahurl

Ronin247 wrote: »

The proper use of speed limits and proper enforcement of them makes a vast difference..... its the old story..its not the size of your speed limit, it is how you use it

It's both. The UK has far more 20 mph zones than we have 30 km/h zones, for example.

wil

SamHall wrote: »

I bet you've never ever broken a speed limit in your life?

but leaves a trail of destruction in a very slow wake.

After reading past posts, minister for transport is to roll out an inspired initiative to deal with "risk" on the road, and it will cost little to introduce.:rolleyes:
All speed limit signs are to be turned upside down. Enforcement will be rigorous. The new 001 kph limit on roads inspired by complete logic of the internet will be credited with saving tens of lives. However the incessant throng of cars approaching 005kph bumper to bumper on our streets will make crossing the roads a little tricky. The army will be on standby to deal with widespread rioting.

PAULWATSON

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Yeah I know exactly what your on about, they operate on both sides of the road there, just where there is a sudden speed limit change.

Money making racket, plain and simple.

End of debate.

Ronin247

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's both. The UK has far more 20 mph zones than we have 30 km/h zones, for example.

Speed limits or zones are no use if used in the wrong place....I have been on country roads that would take 80 kph at a push and they are 100 kph limit and on a well made stretch of road with no junctions, hard shoulder and an 80kph limit.
It doesn't matter about the speed limit, it matters that it is correctly applied and then enforce it, not the other way around.

gucci

Ronin247 wrote: »

In the UK which has roughly the same speed limits as Ireland they have a 20%+ better record on fatalities/million in 2012 than us and roughly half the European average. Apart from Malta, which I would discount due to size, they have the best record.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-236_en.htm

The proper use of speed limits and proper enforcement of them makes a vast difference..... its the old story..its not the size of your speed limit, it is how you use it

where the UK have different speed limits and perhaps different enforcement,i would speculate that their large established motorway network is a huge factor in their safer road fatality record to Ireland.

wil

Iamaurl wrote: »

It's both. The UK has far more 20 mph zones than we have 30 km/h zones, for example.

You ever actually driven in the Uk, and I don't mean a hire car for a week?

Average driving is far faster than here. And far safer. People actually follow the rules, with understanding, not blind ignorance. It's a result of many decades of excellent training, education, positive attitude reinforcement and general compliance to sensible rules and sensible enforcement by an experienced traffic police . Speed cameras went a bit overboard in the last decade and were credited with little improvement to already good figures because of misplaced lobbying and revenue interests. Now many are being pulled.

The biggest risk on the road is the nut behind the wheel. Fix that and you can engineer out most of the risk in driving.

I have seen many serious accidents since returning here, almost none involved excess speed. The most serious i saw happened at about 5kph.
A friend witnessed a fatal accident at about 2kph.
In another a bus killed several people going under 5kph.

Ever ask yourself, if speed was the only real issue, why have successive generations the world over not introduced the relatively simple installation of speed limiters.

Forget training, let everyone on the road so long as they don't break speed limits. Hang on didn't we try that in the 70s and 80s with 700 per year dead in cars barely able to reach 70mph

If someone pointed a gun at you, would you lobby that bullet speeds be reduced?

Anyway, good luck in your driving test.

HurtLocker

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Most of your arguments around these points are sheer sophistry, in this case argument by repeated contradiction, and therefore not worth pursuing. I guess anyone bothered enough to read it can make up their own mind.

So, what about the questions I asked.

You ignored this bit, I see:
Let's look at your answers.

Incorrect
Incorrect
Question not answered
Question not addressed adequately
Incorrect.
Incorrect

You repeatedly emphasise education above enforcement as a means of making our roads safer. If the above set of questions were for an exam I'd fail you.

If saying "Let's look at your answers" and the use of red text like a school teacher tests, followed by the declaration that another posters opinion "fails the exam" does not portray an a antagonising know it all approach to a subject I don't know what does

Irish people speed. Its never going to stop fact. If a speed sign says 100 km/h and I see a clear road ahead which I travel frequently, know the ins and outs of, I put the boot down. I travel much faster on local roads, like nearly everyone I know someone put up automatic enforcement, I wont knock them doen but I know people near me who will.. I rarely meet a camera, and when I do I rarely don't have advanced warning through twitter. What the Gardai can and should do is focus on actual black spots known for crashes. All other is just revenue raising.

If anyone has ever driven from Cork to Kerry they will know of a ridiculous stretch of bendy road on the border. Its a go safe area. No one complains. Because if anyone breaks the limit there they are an idiot. Its 80km/h but going over 50km/h in perfect conditions would be nutty. This is how speed limits can be viewed are arbitrary numbers on a sign in place.

Good luck going 60km/h here never mind 80km/h
http://goo.gl/maps/PktUA

Going 20 under could still be dangerous. Yet 20 over can be safe. Trust me I tested some yesterday for this thread :P. Again another example being the N22 in Cork. Its 100km/h in the winding bits but the limit was raised to 120km/h on the better bit/dual carriage way.

http://goo.gl/maps/xcdWb


Before the council upped the limit it was a fish in a barrel scenario. Look at the link above where the limit changes .Before the change here is a video (not mine) of the guards on the merging lane on the exact flyover enforcing the 100km/h limit. Time has shown that going 120km/h is safe and thankfully been recognised. If it wasn't for people breaking the limit the stupid low limit would still be there. More increases are needed to recognise what in effect is safe speeding drivers do.

For some reaspn the google car didnt go fully down this road but heres a blurry picture of where the guards are and the new limit http://i.imgur.com/fjvfVxq.jpg and here is right infront of where the are http://goo.gl/maps/a0bdu (edit this video is the next flyover after the main speed limit change my mistake, same point)

Guess what?? Since the limit was raised the guards have stopped setting up "gotcha" traps there or any speed trap in fact. I wonder why :rolleyes:.

My example clearly shows that in places speed limits can be arbitrary can can be safely broken without safety being affected, there are many roads like this in the country where the limit is still 100km/h and need to be raised. No need for stupid foreign sources or percentages or antagonising wording :cool:

edit: better link to 80km/h zone.http://goo.gl/maps/AGD30. Twenty euro if you manage it :pac:

airneal

The have to get their overtime allowance someway! Its like the cat taking home a mouse on the doorstep!! They are what they are, not all, but a good selection of them!!

Roger_007 wrote: »

I was leaving Dublin airport today driving on the link road from the roundabout on the old N1 towards the roundabout on the M1. I noticed the Gardaí had set up a speed check near the latter roundabout. I am not sure what speed I was driving at but it was not very fast. I don't know if I will get a ticket for this but if I do, there should be dozens of others because everyone seemed to be driving at the same speed as me, i.e. a safe speed.
I mentioned this incident to a friend and he told me that there is a speed trap there every other day. If this is true, then I would consider this to be a very cynical exercise on the part of the Gardaí. They are supposed to concentrate their resources on known black spots. I don't think this road would be an accident black spot.
Have the Gardaí gone back to 'shooting fish in a barrel' again? It is difficult to have respect for them when they operate a 'gotcha' policy.

wil

gucci wrote: »

where the UK have different speed limits and perhaps different enforcement,i would speculate that their large established motorway network is a huge factor in their safer road fatality record to Ireland.

speculation, but the reason is a much better overall standard of driving and self regulation, with positive enforcement by a proactive experienced traffic police accompanied by a general attitude of pride in driving