GoSafe Speed van caught overtaking on a solid white line

Backside

Wont let me post the link as I am a noob
google this :
gosafe-van-caught-in-dangerous-driving-manouver

Would love to know what the outcome of this will be.

wonski

2 points and 80 euro, maybe?

Definitely not a jail time.

Backside

wonski wrote: »

2 points and 80 euro, maybe?

Definitely not a jail time.

Hopefully!

Bit of a bad representation of the "GoSafe" slogan they are peddling

Kenny Logins

http://www.highlandradio.com/2014/06/05/gosafe-van-caught-in-dangerous-driving-manouver/

leeroybrown

The standard points, the standard fine and a talking to from his boss for making the company look bad. Then the driver of the car can get prosecuted for using their "dashcam" which is obviously handheld mobile phone based on the picture shape and movement between frames.

Backside

leeroybrown wrote: »

The standard points, the standard fine and a talking to from his boss for making the company look bad. Then the driver of the car can get prosecuted for using their "dashcam" which is obviously handheld mobile phone based on the picture shape and movement between frames.

Assuming he is holding it in his hand of course.

wonski

leeroybrown wrote: »

The standard points, the standard fine and a talking to from his boss for making the company look bad. Then the driver of the car can get prosecuted for using their "dashcam" which is obviously handheld mobile phone based on the picture shape and movement between frames.

Was going to say that the camera seems to be mounted on top of a steering weel or something. Maybe it's just my imagination.

Kenny Logins

Backside wrote: »

Assuming he is holding it in his hand of course.

Does appear to be handheld. Ouch.

leeroybrown

Backside wrote: »

Assuming he is holding it in his hand of course.

Pretty much nothing other than being handheld could cause that much movement between shots on a straight road.

corktina

appears to me as if the vehicle is coming at the camera in reverse.....or possibly the pictures are posted in reverse order for some reason...

Slicemeister

Saw this in a redtop yesterday. They quoted the driver as saying it was a mounted camera.

But that's diverting away from the real issue here.

mike65

This was featured on Liveline, the driver had a fixed dash cam.

corktina

Slicemeister wrote: »

Saw this in a redtop yesterday. They quoted the driver as saying it was a mounted camera.

But that's diverting away from the real issue here.

But this is Boards..You always have to find a way to blame anyone other than the guy doing wrong...didn't you know that? :-)

Slicemeister

corktina wrote: »

But this is Boards..You always have to find a way to blame anyone other than the guy doing wrong...didn't you know that? :-)

Unfortunately I do ;-)

I hope he gets the book thrown at him. Is this a P45 inducing action from his employers point of view?. I sincerely hope he's legally entitled to.

wonski

Slicemeister wrote: »

Unfortunately I do ;-)

I hope he gets the book thrown at him. Is this a P45 inducing action from his employers point of view?. I sincerely hope he's legally entitled to.

I doubt that. Written warning - maybe.

I know everyone now wants a public lynching, but I see manouvres like that being done by white vans, red vans, bicycles, motorcycles, mpv's, taxis, gardai and micras. Have a look at the dashcam thread and take your pick;)

As much as I hate those speed cameras, that is a fixed penalty office. Dangerous driving would have to be proved, and these pictures won't do that.

And just to point it out most people hate those cameras for one reason only, so throwing stones now is a hipocrisy.

dougie-lampkin

At the end of the day, the guy driving the van is just another van driver. He wasn't hired to enforce the law, just to drive a van from one place to another. I've seen far more shocking behavior from other van drivers than overtaking on a straight road.

If this was a plumber in a white transit it would be a non-story, why should this be newsworthy?

Also, that is not a dashcam being used, unless he has it swinging off the driver's sunvisor. It's clearly handheld.

wonski

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

At the end of the day, the guy driving the van is just another van driver. He wasn't hired to enforce the law, just to drive a van from one place to another. I've seen far more shocking behavior from other van drivers than overtaking on a straight road.

If this was a plumber in a white transit it would be a non-story, why should this be newsworthy?

Also, that is not a dashcam being used, unless he has it swinging off the driver's sunvisor. It's clearly handheld.

I think there is a bend ahead, but difficult to say,

I can guess that there will be a briefing on the incident and the drivers will be told to slow down etc.
Other than that it is a non-story really.

Slicemeister

wonski wrote: »

I doubt that. Written warning - maybe.

I know everyone now wants a public lynching, but I see manouvres like that being done by white vans, red vans, bicycles, motorcycles, mpv's, taxis, gardai and micras. Have a look at the dashcam thread and take your pick;)

As much as I hate those speed cameras, that is a fixed penalty office. Dangerous driving would have to be proved, and these pictures won't do that.

And just to point it out most people hate those cameras for one reason only, so throwing stones now is a hipocrisy.

I've no points, nor never been convicted of dangerous driving. Why would I be hypocritical? They're a company brought in to promote safer roads and driving practices, yet decline to adhere to their own "teachings" for want of a better word.
It's highly hypocritical he's not publically reprimanded. But no, this'll be kept in house and the public can go on their merry way being shot like fish in a barrel.

wonski

Slicemeister wrote: »

I've no points, nor never been convicted of dangerous driving. Why would I be hypocritical? They're a company brought in to promote safer roads and driving practices, yet decline to adhere to their own "teachings" for want of a better word.
It's highly hypocritical he's not publically reprimanded. But no, this'll be kept in house and the public can go on their merry way being shot like fish in a barrel.

I can assure you this guy will be reprimanded. Let his boss do the job, not the public.

I am not defending the driver nor the gosafe itself.

Clearly stating the guy is not a criminal, so let the gardai and his boss deal with it. No need to put his photos up on DailyMail and sending him off to SW to sign on.

It was 1 driver of 1 van. Is it more acceptable for an eircom van to drive in this manner? Or a taxi? No, it isn't.

Hitchens

maybe the driver had an emergency? sick child, spouse/partner depressed or something that required urgent attention?

Slicemeister

wonski wrote: »

I can assure you this guy will be reprimanded. Let his boss do the job, not the public.

I am not defending the driver nor the gosafe itself.

Clearly stating the guy is not a criminal, so let the gardai and his boss deal with it. No need to put his photos up on DailyMail and sending him off to SW to sign on.

It was 1 driver of 1 van. Is it more acceptable for an eircom van to drive in this manner? Or a taxi? No, it isn't.

Yeah that's more what I meant, just rereading my own post it sounds a bit like I'm after a public lynching when I'm not...

They should release a statement regarding the outcome of this imo though.

wonski

Hitchens wrote: »

maybe the driver had an emergency? sick child, spouse/partner depressed or something that required urgent attention?

Let's not try to justify his actions.
The amount of love towards that van in this thread is surprising, really.

Reading my own posts makes me question my sanity now:D

Del2005

Slicemeister wrote: »

I've no points, nor never been convicted of dangerous driving. Why would I be hypocritical? They're a company brought in to promote safer roads and driving practices, yet decline to adhere to their own "teachings" for want of a better word.
It's highly hypocritical he's not publically reprimanded. But no, this'll be kept in house and the public can go on their merry way being shot like fish in a barrel.

GoSafe were brought in to take pictures of of vehicles exceeding the posted limit on long straight roads. They were never hired to improve road safety as in order to do that they'd have to put the speed trap on the bendy dangerous bits of the road, or even better remove the dangerous bit of the road. They aren't even close to where the fatalities occurred in most of their locations.

mossym

Del2005 wrote: »

They aren't even close to where the fatalities occurred in most of their locations.

There is one regularly outside my parents house, where they have lived for close on 40 years, and i grew up. In that time, there have been 3 accidents there, only one serious enough with injuries that required an ambulance, and that person was released from hospital that evening ( i know because they were a local).


there is another on another main artery road to the town, where, in close on 40 years, i do not remember a single accident, ever.


these two roads, are however, the two busiest commuter roads to Limerick, and have a steady heavy stream of traffic at commuter hours. i'm pretty confident i know the reason they vans are there, and it's not about ensuring any sort of safety

kona

Of course he's going to get points :rolleyes:

bladespin

leeroybrown wrote: »

Then the driver of the car can get prosecuted for using their "dashcam" which is obviously handheld mobile phone based on the picture shape and movement between frames.

dougie-lampkin wrote: »

Also, that is not a dashcam being used, unless he has it swinging off the driver's sunvisor. It's clearly handheld.

You have absolutely no proof of this unlike proof of the van overtaking on a solid.

wonski

kona wrote: »

Of course he's going to get points :rolleyes:

Given the publicity I believe he will get them.

Even if the reg isn't readable they can identify the driver. If i was managing them I would ask the person involved to come clean by now.

The points, fine and a disciplinary action would suffice to repair the damage. The driver won't do that again if he wants to keep his job.

mgbgt1978

wonski wrote: »

Given the publicity I believe he will get them.

Eh. How does that work ???
No garda witness, simply a 'dashcam' video which could easily be fake.

But if you believe hard enough it just might happen

Bio Mech

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Eh. How does that work ???
No garda witness, simply a 'dashcam' video which could easily be fake.

But if you believe hard enough it just might happen

It wouldn't be hard to prove its authenticity either way and there doesn't need to be a garda witness to every crime. The motorist could stand witness.

The new cameras at Luas junctions will be used for prosecutions. There wont be a garda witness there either.

leeroybrown

bladespin wrote: »

You have absolutely no proof of this unlike proof of the van overtaking on a solid.

Perhaps there's not sufficient proof to prosecute the driver but it's pretty obviously a handheld device and most likely a phone. One ass overtaking on a continuous white doesn't excuse another ass from dangerously film them.

leeroybrown

corktina wrote: »

But this is Boards..You always have to find a way to blame anyone other than the guy doing wrong...didn't you know that? :-)

Both drivers are at fault. One idiot doesn't excuse another.

A relative in the UK was nearly hit by a speeding driver who broke a red light in an urban area then drove off. He went to the nearby police station to report it. When he described the incident the officer on duty informed him that they'd follow attempt to charge him but that they'd also be issuing him with a fine for stopping his car where he admitted it was as it was illegal. Both ended up getting caught and correctly so.

Backside

leeroybrown wrote: »

Both drivers are at fault. One idiot doesn't excuse another.

A relative in the UK was nearly hit by a speeding driver who broke a red light in an urban area then drove off. He went to the nearby police station to report it. When he described the incident the officer on duty informed him that they'd follow attempt to charge him but that they'd also be issuing him with a fine for stopping his car where he admitted it was as it was illegal. Both ended up getting caught and correctly so.

There is no hard evidence that this guy was holding a phone, I had a universal holder for my iphone that used to shake around like mad when attached to the windscreen and if I wanted I could have it positioned in front of the steering wheel.

People should worry about their driving and not the driving of others, these dash cams should be illegal.

I swear people must only drive on the road with these cameras just to try and catch people so they can run to the Guards being good citizens.

People should mind their own business and let the Guards do their job.

I can't believe people have nothing better to do.

daveohdave

Be more short-sighted.

I have a dashcam for my own protection from the likes of that GoSafe driver, who is performing a _dangerous_ manoeuvre. It's called "evidence". Look it up.