Speed Cameras - how's that working out for ya (Dept, that is.....) ..

galwaytt

Apologies if posted already, but someone emailed me this yesterday......

Expected revenues predicted of €40m - €70m, then revised to €27m. Actual amount generated........ €4.6m. But it cost the State €15.6m to 'collect' the €4.6m. That's a loss of €11m in one year.

Geniuses lads, those Dept accountants. Do banking much ??

Still, 'Speed Kills', right, so that's o.k. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And the State's response to the reduction - by 50% mind - of the number of speeding fines ?? - not to say 'well done' or 'ye're behaving better'. Oh no, it's to roll out extra zones to park them in.

Well done, that'll win us over alright :rolleyes:

Not as much in fines hoped........so we'll just put them in even more stupid places instead then..

BMJD

Speed Kills PAYS

ba_barabus

I've started to notice lots of places at the side of motorways been prepared to park these vans on.

I thought it was illegal/dangerous to stop on a motorway unless it was an emergency?

listermint

ba_barabus wrote: »

I've started to notice lots of places at the side of motorways been prepared to park these vans on.

I thought it was illegal/dangerous to stop on a motorway unless it was an emergency?

Not if you are in power its not.

listermint

Whats there strategy for single vehicle deaths on poor country roads and 3am in the morning?

Caliden

As long as they keep making a loss, it will get to a point where they will have to remove them altogether.

The majority of people aren't stupid and will just know where the usual spots for cameras are.

BMJD

listermint wrote: »

Whats there strategy for single vehicle deaths on poor country roads and 3am in the morning?

close the Garda stations

slimjimmc

ba_barabus wrote: »

I've started to notice lots of places at the side of motorways been prepared to park these vans on.

I thought it was illegal/dangerous to stop on a motorway unless it was an emergency?

If they're the same bays that were discussed on boards previously then they're for road maintenance vehicles and no one anyone else. There's a substantial infrastructure buried along the edge of the road which requires maintenance.

listermint

BMJD wrote: »

close the Garda stations

exactly.

All these speed camera crap is about optics, until it starts costing the state real money, which it appears to be now they will up the anti and move the jumpers around.

ba_barabus

slimjimmc wrote: »

If they're the same bays that were discussed on boards previously then they're for road maintenance vehicles and no one anyone else. There's a substantial infrastructure buried along the edge of the road which requires maintenance.

That's possible I missed that conversation.

They're on the grass verges. Some have the grass cut and surfaced levelled while others have a solid surface with grass growing on them.

pred racer

Alot of the spots they picked, used to be high traffic roads eg most of the old N7
Nobody uses this road any more as its bypassed by the motorway.
I am delighted that they are not making any money from it, now we will see their true colours.
There is one gosafe zone very close to me which was a shameless money grabber (there has never been an accident there in my memory and Ive lived here 30yrs) there was only one place to park the van safely, which was outside a certain womans house. After they caught her speeding, decelerating to drive in her own gate:rolleyes: she bought several large concrete pots off my father, Van has never been seen there since

H3llR4iser

galwaytt wrote: »

Apologies if posted already, but someone emailed me this yesterday......

Expected revenues predicted of €40m - €70m, then revised to €27m. Actual amount generated........ €4.6m. But it cost the State €15.6m to 'collect' the €4.6m. That's a loss of €11m in one year.

Geniuses lads, those Dept accountants. Do banking much ??

Still, 'Speed Kills', right, so that's o.k. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And the State's response to the reduction - by 50% mind - of the number of speeding fines ?? - not to say 'well done' or 'ye're behaving better'. Oh no, it's to roll out extra zones to park them in.

Well done, that'll win us over alright :rolleyes:

Not as much in fines hoped........so we'll just put them in even more stupid places instead then..

Well what are they complaining about? That's the way it should work, making a loss...it's INVESTMENT in ROAD SAFETY afterall. Sure enough, they wouldn't be silly enough to expect PROFIT or breaking even with it, that would be naive...wouldn't it?

Anan1

What a muddled rant.

galwaytt wrote: »

Apologies if posted already, but someone emailed me this yesterday......

Expected revenues predicted of €40m - €70m, then revised to €27m. Actual amount generated........ €4.6m. But it cost the State €15.6m to 'collect' the €4.6m. That's a loss of €11m in one year.

Geniuses lads, those Dept accountants. Do banking much ??

Since when was law enforcement supposed to turn a profit?

galwaytt wrote: »

Still, 'Speed Kills', right, so that's o.k. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And the State's response to the reduction - by 50% mind - of the number of speeding fines ?? - not to say 'well done' or 'ye're behaving better'. Oh no, it's to roll out extra zones to park them in.

Well done, that'll win us over alright :rolleyes:

What do you expect, if increased enforcement has been proven to increase compliance rates?

ardmacha

Speed detection is something that should end up making a loss as it would mean that it had reduced the number of people speeding, which is the purpose of the exercise.

pred racer

Anan1 wrote: »

What a muddled rant.Since when was law enforcement supposed to turn a profit?
What do you expect, if increased enforcement has been proven to increase compliance rates?

Its not, but these clowns thought it would;)

But the article says it hasnt changed behaviour, therefore I would argue its not working.

Anan1

pred racer wrote: »

Its not, but these clowns thought it would;)

Isn't it a good thing for everyone that fines were lower than expected?

pred racer wrote: »

But the article says it hasnt changed behaviour, therefore I would argue its not working.

OP says speeding fines are down 50%?

pred racer

Anan1 wrote: »

Isn't it a good thing for everyone that fines were lower than expected?

OP says speeding fines are down 50%?

Yes, but if people cant slow down when they see the sign, I'd worry about their intelligence! Its not too good for the clowns who expected to rake in €70 million.

I was refering to this portion of the article.

"This appears to suggest that while motorists are aware of and responding to speeding enforcement in the areas monitored by privatised cameras, there has not as yet been a significant change in driver behaviour."

eringobragh

Anan1 wrote: »

Isn't it a good thing for everyone that fines were lower than expected?

OP says speeding fines are down 50%?

Gosafe upped their game and lowered the thresholds on the vans a good while ago - no reason given

Source: gosafe employee

Anan1

pred racer wrote: »

Yes, but if people cant slow down when they see the sign, I'd worry about their intelligence! Its not too good for the clowns who expected to rake in €70 million.

I was refering to this portion of the article.

"This appears to suggest that while motorists are aware of and responding to speeding enforcement in the areas monitored by privatised cameras, there has not as yet been a significant change in driver behaviour."

Sure the whole point of enforcement is that people respond to the threat of being caught! Lower fines means greater compliance in the monitored areas, which is good for the clowns.

ba_barabus

eringobragh wrote: »

Gosafe upped their game and lowered the thresholds on the vans a good while ago - no reason given

Source: gosafe employee

What threshold?

CiniO

So now I can see two possible things they will do.

1. They will increase fines for speeding to some crazy levels like €500 per speeding offence. This should generate more revenue.

2. Otherwise, if it won't (f.e. because people will stop speeding completely in those zones), they can leave current fine levels, but scrap penalty points for speeding. Because that's what most drivers are affraid the most. I'm sure there would be plenty people willing to speed if it was only €80 fine without penalty points. That's another way to raise the revenue then for them.

Anan1

CiniO wrote: »

So now I can see two possible things they will do.

1. They will increase fines for speeding to some crazy levels like €500 per speeding offence. This should generate more revenue.

2. Otherwise, if it won't (f.e. because people will stop speeding completely in those zones), they can leave current fine levels, but scrap penalty points for speeding. Because that's what most drivers are affraid the most. I'm sure there would be plenty people willing to speed if it was only €80 fine without penalty points. That's another way to raise the revenue then for them.

You're completely missing the point. Enforcement was never supposed to make money - the real savings to the exchequer are in lower death & serious injury costs.

CiniO

Anan1 wrote: »

You're completely missing the point. Enforcement was never supposed to make money - the real savings to the exchequer are in lower death & serious injury costs.

Are you sure that this was their idea when rolling speed camera system?
I don't think so...

galwaytt

Anan1 wrote: »

What a muddled rant.Since when was law enforcement supposed to turn a profit?
What do you expect, if increased enforcement has been proven to increase compliance rates?

:rolleyes:

As for the profit comment, the justification for this contract was financial. Someone in the Dept said it would generate the €40m-70m figure, which was revised (alarmingly by approx. 50%). This was the financial justification for rolling it out to a private contractor - that it would alter behaviour and be cost positive.

Now they're claiming it hasn't altered behaviour (despite their own evidence to the contrary) and it's actually cost them - actually US - €11m in a 12mth period.

So, they have failed on both counts.

I expect (sic) that the people who are responsible for this are competent. They are obviously not.

If that's muddled I'd hate to see clarity.

Anan1

CiniO wrote: »

Are you sure that this was their idea when rolling speed camera system?
I don't think so...

Of course it was. Enforcement of laws is for the social good, this is why we pay for Gardaí/courts/prisons.

Scortho

CiniO wrote: »

So now I can see two possible things they will do.

1. They will increase fines for speeding to some crazy levels like €500 per speeding offence. This should generate more revenue.

2. Otherwise, if it won't (f.e. because people will stop speeding completely in those zones), they can leave current fine levels, but scrap penalty points for speeding. Because that's what most drivers are affraid the most. I'm sure there would be plenty people willing to speed if it was only €80 fine without penalty points. That's another way to raise the revenue then for them.

I would love if number 2 was to happen:D

ba_barabus

CiniO wrote: »

Are you sure that this was their idea when rolling speed camera system?
I don't think so...

That's true and it was the reason given for the parent structure to GoSafe at the beginning.

It will be interesting to see how the issue progresses.

CiniO

Anan1 wrote: »

Of course it was. Enforcement of laws is for the social good, this is why we pay for Gardaí/courts/prisons.

Time will tell.
If speed camera system is bringing loss, they will surely do something with it soon.
We will see then, and return to this thread

eringobragh

ba_barabus wrote: »

What threshold?

The speed threshold for fines. Before you were allowed 8km over, and a ticket issued for all vehicles doing 9km and over. it is now 5km/h (not sure if it is 5km grace or if 5km is ticket territory)

Reason being the redflex system has a degree of error - haven't the exact specs to hand but if I remember correctly its +/- 2kmph accuracy

Anan1

galwaytt wrote: »

:rolleyes:

As for the profit comment, the justification for this contract was financial. Someone in the Dept said it would generate the €40m-70m figure, which was revised (alarmingly by approx. 50%). This was the financial justification for rolling it out to a private contractor - that it would alter behaviour and be cost positive.

Now they're claiming it hasn't altered behaviour (despite their own evidence to the contrary) and it's actually cost them - actually US - €11m in a 12mth period.

So, they have failed on both counts.

I expect (sic) that the people who are responsible for this are competent. They are obviously not.

If that's muddled I'd hate to see clarity.

It's still muddled. Are you arguing that it's working or that it's not?

ba_barabus

eringobragh wrote: »

The speed threshold for fines. Before you were allowed 8km over, and a ticket issued for all vehicles doing 9km and over. it is now 5km/h (not sure if it is 5km grace or if 5km is ticket territory)

Reason being the redflex system has a degree of error - haven't the exact specs to hand but if I remember correctly its +/- 2kmph accuracy

I understood that Gardai had to view, approve and sign off on any fines to stop them having too low a threshold. Although you do point out that one still does exist.

H3llR4iser

Anan1 wrote: »

It's still muddled. Are you arguing that it's working or that it's not?

Let's put it this way:

IDEAL WORLD
It's working perfectly; The cameras are fulfilling their purpose of making drivers more aware of speed limits, and the investment in road safety is well worth the results;

REAL WORLD
It's burning down like a paper spacecraft on atmospheric re-entry. It's costing the State/taxpayer a fortune and it's not turning the intended profit in, due to these pesky motorists actually not cooperating and getting caught speeding. Need more cameras, need lower limits, need higher fines.

eringobragh

ba_barabus wrote: »

I understood that Gardai had to view, approve and sign off on any fines to stop them having too low a threshold. Although you do point out that one still does exist.

The system wont capture your plate if you fall outside the thresholds I listed.

Anan1

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Let's put it this way:

IDEAL WORLD
It's working perfectly; The cameras are fulfilling their purpose of making drivers more aware of speed limits, and the investment in road safety is well worth the results;

REAL WORLD
It's burning down like a paper spacecraft on atmospheric re-entry. It's costing the State/taxpayer a fortune and it's not turning the intended profit in, due to these pesky motorists actually not cooperating and getting caught speeding. Need more cameras, need lower limits, need higher fines.

What's the difference? It costs, but it's working, no?

ba_barabus

eringobragh wrote: »

The system wont capture your plate if you fall outside the thresholds I listed.

You learn something new everyday.

Does that mean then that you automatically get a fine if you are above the threshold or is it reviewed again before the fine is sent out.

I'm thinking along the lines of doing 105 in a 100 zone. It would seem harsh to me as you would have the margin of error to contend with too which means in real terms you may only be going 3kph over the limit.

eringobragh

Another thing to note about the gosafe vans - they prided themselves on making them look ultra noticeable - the "high viz" strips on the back create the illusion they are high viz they do absolutely nothing at night - beside a garda car they are night and day.

bunch of charlatons

eringobragh

ba_barabus wrote: »

You learn something new everyday.

Does that mean then that you automatically get a fine if you are above the threshold or is it reviewed again before the fine is sent out.

I'm thinking along the lines of doing 105 in a 100 zone. It would seem harsh to me as you would have the margin of error to contend with too which means in real terms you may only be going 3kph over the limit.

They are sent off to the garda fines division and processed there - can't answer the 100k, but see no reason why they wouldn't issue it.

The ROBOT vans the garda operate are slightly different - haven't got real world figures for those.

ba_barabus

eringobragh wrote: »

Another thing to note about the gosafe vans - they prided themselves on making them look ultra noticeable - the "high viz" strips on the back create the illusion they are high viz they do absolutely nothing at night - beside a garda car they are night and day.

bunch of charlatons

Surely that can't be legal however.

Don't road working vehicles have to have hi-viz markings to protect the safety of the workers and motorists?

In other words if your business is based around parking vans at the side of the road surely you have a duty to make you vehicles visible enough so that they aren't a hazard.

pred racer

Anan1 wrote: »

What's the difference? It costs, but it's working, no?

The point is, according to the article its not working! General behaviour has not changed, it has only changed in these specific areas.

So it costs and its not working.

They intended to make a profit (or at least cover the costs of the private contractor) and change driver behaviour.........neither has happened.

How many extra Garda cars could be put on the road with the money they are losing I wonder? Imagine what enforcement of issues that actually cause accidents could achieve!

(that last bit is not directed at you Anan1, just a general comment)

eringobragh

ba_barabus wrote: »

Surely that can't be legal however.

Don't road working vehicles have to have hi-viz markings to protect the safety of the workers and motorists?

In other words if your business is based around parking vans at the side of the road surely you have a duty to make you vehicles visible enough so that they aren't a hazard.

they might provide 'some' visibility - but its probably the minium level required by law

I have a still of it one night on an old in car camera system - it it was the garda high viz the camera would be blinded.

H3llR4iser

Anan1 wrote: »

What's the difference? It costs, but it's working, no?

It's working very well apparently, up to the point of forcing the RSA/government to essentially admit the idea was to make money off of it. Prime example of double-edged sword, I say

ardmacha

t's working very well apparently, up to the point of forcing the RSA/government to essentially admit the idea was to make money off of it.

They didn't wish to make money off it, but it would be nice the offenders paid for all this so that the rest of us don't have to pay.

They need to move these vans around and perhaps increase speeding fines in bands for speeds more than 20% over the limit.

corktina

Stop just one road death and you have got back all those costs and more. Those figures are proof it isn't about Revenue Collection

mitosis

Hey, OP, whatever happened to the oft posted mantra "Speed cameras are about revenue generation"? Now you see they plainly are not, that's now also a gripe?

Make up your mind.

pred racer

corktina wrote: »

Stop just one road death and you have got back all those costs and more. Those figures are proof it isn't about Revenue Collection

How can 1 road death possibly cost >€15 million??

Iwannahurl

Anan1 wrote: »

What's the difference? It costs, but it's working, no?

corktina wrote: »

Stop just one road death and you have got back all those costs and more. Those figures are proof it isn't about Revenue Collection

mitosis wrote: »

Hey, OP, whatever happened to the oft posted mantra "Speed cameras are about revenue generation"? Now you see they plainly are not, that's now also a gripe?

Make up your mind.

It looks as if the speed camera sceptics are trying to have it both ways.

On the one hand, there's the knee-jerk reaction that speed cameras are purely for gathering "stealth tax".

On the other hand, evidence of the GoSafe programme losing money, while apparently being effective in terms of reducing speed in designated zones, is something to gloat over.

The Irish Times report says:

The number of motorists detected speeding by Go Safe cameras has fallen dramatically since their full introduction in January 2011. Over 70,000 were detected in the first six months and this dropped to just over 30,000 in the final six months of the year.

The Comptroller and Auditor General notes that detection by An Garda using handheld speed cameras or Garda speed vans remained broadly unchanged over the period.

This appears to suggest that while motorists are aware of and responding to speeding enforcement in the areas monitored by privatised cameras, there has not as yet been a significant change in driver behaviour.

The latest National Slow Down Day apparently found just 0.4% of motorists breaking the speed limit (364 detected speeding out of 96,838 vehicles monitored).

It would not be plausible to conclude that just four in every thousand motorists around the country are breaking the speed limit, even during a well-publicised 24-hour speed surveillance blitz. As one comment on the above journal.ie article says, that number of detections nationally amounts to less than one motorist speeding per county per hour.

If the GoSafe operation is working in the designated zones, which are now well-known of course, then the obvious response is to start spreading them around more. This year's rise in road deaths should be motivation enough for AGS to ramp up speed surveillance wherever possible. That said, in my view it is irrational (and possibly even unethical) to site speed cameras only where deaths have already occurred, which was the original plan.

The collection of speeding fines motivates motorists to slow down and governments to roll out speed surveillance programmes. I would hope that the government bean-counters don't regard the revenue shortfall as a failure, which might lead them to recommend retrograde policies such as curtailing speed surveillance.

BMJD

pred racer wrote: »

How can 1 road death possibly cost >€15 million??

Various figures are mention in this thread ranging from US$1m to almost €3m. I guess it's priceless if it's a loved one

mikeecho

eringobragh wrote: »

The speed threshold for fines. Before you were allowed 8km over, and a ticket issued for all vehicles doing 9km and over. it is now 5km/h (not sure if it is 5km grace or if 5km is ticket territory)

Reason being the redflex system has a degree of error - haven't the exact specs to hand but if I remember correctly its +/- 2kmph accuracy

Manufacturer has updated the specs a while back

it was accurate to ±3 km/h (or ±1.5% whichever is greater,
now its accurate to ±1.5 km/h (or ±1.91% whichever is greater)


as for the threshold, it was over 9km/h and you got a ticket ie 10 over and you got a ticket
Then it seemed to be at 4km/h , 5km/h over and you got a ticket
now it seems to be at 2km/h, and you get a ticket at 3km/h over.

Obviously they weren't getting the enough captures so they (the gardai) had to keep lowering the threshold.


The GoSafe contract expires in 2015 with an option for an extra year.
I reckon that the next contract will include tickets for no motor tax.

swe_fi

I have only seen these vans in a few places, around Galway they are in 2 spots that i know.

a) A 50-zone that used to be 80 i think (out towards the airport). Most ridiculous 50 zone ever. This camera can probably bring in a few quid but save no lives.

b) Outside Kilcolgan towards Gort - 100 zone where 99% of the time you cannot reach 100 km/h because you are stuck behind 28 cars that are stuck behind some some Micra / Tractor doing 62 km/h. This camera makes no money and saves no lives.

I interpret the findings as that people are not speeding as much as the government thought they were (Gov't were grossly overestimating revenues to justify implementation of this system), not that behavior has changed due to implementation of some speed cameras, or that they are put in the wrong place or at the wrong time, It is never that simple.

dnme

I tell ya, over 30 or so years I have been driving, I have come to this conclusion.

The country is packed with cars. Everywhere you look there are these 1 and 2 ton metal boxes hurtling along. The people responsible for / driving them are mostly in a hurry. They get distracted easily. Some of them use phones, do their make up. So are angry, very angry and act so aggressively. Some aren't insured, or NCT'd. All these hundreds of thousands 1 and 2 ton metal boxes. Then consider the country has loads of bad roads, and a long dark winter, icy wet and windy. With all these hundreds of thousands of metal boxes being driven around at any given time; when I sit into mine, I wonder what the hell I'm going to meet tonight!

Thank god for any bit of policing. Anything to enforce the rules. Jesus without it, chances are, one or two of us wouldn't be around to type here.

ardmacha

Whatever about one death costing €15 million, one accident might cost this. The highest accident rate is among young people and 5 or 6 might be involved in a 2 car crash. Lost earnings alone would make up this amount, but if someone is seriously injured but not killed then not only are earnings lost but their care can be extremely expensive, and this may continue for 50 years.