And the Speed Camera spin continue

mikeecho

A few months ago we sae articles stating that the GoSafe vans were a failure, and not value for money

They did not catch as many speeders as had been anticipated.

They were not self financing as was expected.

But now with the renewal of the contract looming, we get articles like this.



Speed cameras save 71 lives in 3 years
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/speed-cameras-save-71-lives-in-3-years-285237.html?utm_source=androidapp&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=sharebutton

Valetta

mikeecho wrote: »

A few months ago we sae articles stating that the GoSafe vans were a failure, and not value for money

They did not catch as many speeders as had been anticipated.

They were not self financing as was expected.

But now with the renewal of the contract looming, we get articles like this.



Speed cameras save 71 lives in 3 years
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/speed-cameras-save-71-lives-in-3-years-285237.html?utm_source=androidapp&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=sharebutton

The article acknowledges the fact that the vans only cover 50% of the direct cost, so I'm not sure what your point is.

greilly123

what aload of rubbish I tought deaths were up?

mikeecho

Valetta wrote: »

The article acknowledges the fact that the vans only cover 50% of the direct cost, so I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is:

The propaganda machine is gearing up, in time for the contract renewal.

Skylinehead

I'd love to see them try to quantify this. How?

mikeecho

greilly123 wrote: »

what aload of rubbish I tought deaths were up?

they are

mikeecho

Skylinehead wrote: »

I'd love to see them try to quantify this. How?

personally i believe road deaths are down, due to the economy.

Lads dont have the money to be out spinning around as much as they did.
People are drinking at home, thus less driving home from the pub
Emigration... thousands and thousand have left the country, many of whom would have been considered high risk for accidents by insurance companies.

djimi

Lets not forget the fact that cars are getting safer all the time; 3 years is a long time in terms of development.

Reg'stoy

mikeecho wrote: »

My point is:

The propaganda machine is gearing up, in time for the contract renewal.

From the article you've linked it's a Dept spokesman who mentions the number of lives saved and that the monies raised by the system only account for 50% of the running costs.

I would imagine if Go Safe were looking to renew, they would like to show themselves cost neutral.

Hardly revenue generating, if their operation is not cost neutral. I had read somewhere that any road death costs the state (us as tax payers) in the millions and serious life changing injuries in the high 100,000's. So if it can be shown that camera locations on certain roads have resulted in less deaths on them in particular, then it's a cost saving to the state.

Unfortunately there have been a number of road deaths recently, some have been single car; which would lead one to believe, fatigue, drink or speed were the probable reasons. A couple have been 'crossing the center line' which can be poor judgement; so we are never going to eliminate deaths completely.

I'll nail my colours to the mast and say I don't have any points, I personally have never seen Go Safe Vans or Garda speed traps in revenue generating locations. If I get caught it won't be down to sneakiness on the authorities part rather it will have been my heavy right foot. I through my job see the results of these accidents and so might be somewhat biased.

I've never heard of a road death caused by these vans and so if they have even saved a few lives or indeed prevent life changing injuries; then for me they are doing a good job. Incidentally I believe life changing injuries should be included in the statistics, cars are safer, medical science has improved; indeed road side treatment now has dramatically improved. Just because road deaths as an arbitrary figure are up or indeed down is not the full story. Take a trip to Our Lady of Lourdes hospital and see the numbers of individuals who 'survive' accidents everyday.

djimi

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I personally have never seen Go Safe Vans or Garda speed traps in revenue generating locations. If I get caught it won't be down to sneakiness on the authorities part rather it will have been my heavy right foot.

Sadly that is not the case for most people. They park one across from my estate which is on a long straight road leaving the town, where the chances of there ever being an accident at all, let alone a fatal one, are virtually nil, yet they know they will catch a lot of people who dont slow down enough in time, or who speed up a little too quickly. Another one loves to park on the Kilcock Road as you enter Clane, just as the limit changes from 80 to 60. Again it is probably the safest part of the road, yet it is the spot that is guaranteed to generate the most revenue. I dont think I have ever seen one parked where I could genuinely say it was a good idea from the point of view of safety, and where my first thought wasnt that they are just shooting fish in a barrell. Can anyone say they have ever seen one parked near a school on a weekday afternoon? I cant.

They serve their purpose, and at the end of the day if you get caught by them it will be because you were speeding so nobody can ultimately complain. However, there is absolutely no way that their primary remit is safety, and it is actually insulting to the people of this country that they continue to spout this line and expect us to believe it. I would have a lot more respect for GoSafe and for the Gardai if they just called it what it is, and dropped the nonsense "safety" element of it.

They also need to rethink the operation of the GoSafe system. As it stands, I know the four or five spots where they are likely to be parked on my daily driving, and I also know that they absolutely will not be parked anywhere else. It sort of defeats the purpose if Im watching out for them in isolated 500m stretches of road, safe in the knowledge that I wont be caught anywhere else. The whole purpose of speed vans is that they are supposed to be random; you are supposed to have the threat of meeting them around every corner on every road you drive (within reason of course). There is no threat to the way they operate any more, unless you have a lapse in concentration and happen to forget where one might be parked...

Victor

mikeecho wrote: »

A few months ago we sae articles stating that the GoSafe vans were a failure, and not value for mone

No, the said on a narrow financial basis, they didn't cover their costs. However, they were never expected to fully cover their costs in this manner.

The article shows that on a broader economic basis that they do cover their costs, by doing what they are intended to do - slow traffic down and reduce the number of collisions / casualties.

mikeecho

Victor wrote: »

No, the said on a narrow financial basis, they didn't cover their costs. However, they were never expected to fully cover their costs in this manner.

The article shows that on a broader economic basis that they do cover their costs, by doing what they are intended to do - slow traffic down and reduce the number of collisions / casualties.

That's what I'm getting at.
They are highlighting the perceived positives at a convenient time.... contract renewal time

ie. A spin is being put on the whole operation

btw. Never be caught by a camera van, garda or gosafe.

Nor have I ever recieved and traffic ticket of any kind in the past 20yrs of driving

greilly123

How can they say they saved over 71 lives ?? I relay can not understand how they can come out with this.
So Gosafe van's predicted 71 crashes and that some one was going to die in each one of them and that
by the van being there they saved 71 lives.

Or are they trying to say there was x number of road deaths on a parts of some roads before hand because of that there is going to be more road deaths on that part of the road ? and that a go safe van stooped this ?

My two cents the driving test should be like Finland (able to know car control both in wet and dry conditions & snow & ice ) put them on a skid pan etc

I also think that a limiter & recorder should be put on cars for young drivers. And for old people I think a refresher course every 2 - 3 years once they hit over 70.

People with more then 4 points would also have to take the course at there own expense.

A review of speed limits needs to be done also.

People just see the speed vans as tax collectors for the government. I have seen plain vans now with no markings on them with a camera sticking out of the roof I thought they were suppose to be highly visible were they not?

I do not believe the war on the motorist is about road safety but just to get more money out of them if the had a real grasp of road safety they would do all them things I have said above and more and then we will see the death rates fall but then again (**** happens).

Victor

Skylinehead wrote: »

I'd love to see them try to quantify this. How?

I'm sure if you read the paper that was presented you will find out.

Essentially you pick a number of zones, some dangerous, some not so dangerous, apply speed cameras to some of both and compare the before and after. Adjust for general trends, etc.

greilly123 wrote: »

what aload of rubbish I tought deaths were up?

Numbers evolve over time. From http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/ 2014 fatalities are expected to be higher than 2013 fatalities.

djimi wrote: »

Lets not forget the fact that cars are getting safer all the time;

But people make allowances for this and drive more carelessly, as they also feel safer. In Britain, when seat belt use was made mandatory, pedestrian casualties went up.

3 years is a long time in terms of development.

The problem there is implementation - there are lots of cars older than 3 years.

djimi wrote: »

They also need to rethink the operation of the GoSafe system. As it stands, I know the four or five spots where they are likely to be parked on my daily driving, and I also know that they absolutely will not be parked anywhere else. It sort of defeats the purpose if Im watching out for them in isolated 500m stretches of road, safe in the knowledge that I wont be caught anywhere else.

greilly123 wrote: »

People just see the speed vans as tax collectors for the government. I have seen plain vans now with no markings on them with a camera sticking out of the roof I thought they were suppose to be highly visible were they not?

The Garda-operated vans do operate at random.

Odyssey 2005

djimi wrote: »

Sadly that is not the case for most people. They park one across from my estate which is on a long straight road leaving the town, where the chances of there ever being an accident at all, let alone a fatal one, are virtually nil, yet they know they will catch a lot of people who dont slow down enough in time, or who speed up a little too quickly. Another one loves to park on the Kilcock Road as you enter Clane, just as the limit changes from 80 to 60. Again it is probably the safest part of the road, yet it is the spot that is guaranteed to generate the most revenue. I dont think I have ever seen one parked where I could genuinely say it was a good idea from the point of view of safety, and where my first thought wasnt that they are just shooting fish in a barrell. Can anyone say they have ever seen one parked near a school on a weekday afternoon? I cant.

They serve their purpose, and at the end of the day if you get caught by them it will be because you were speeding so nobody can ultimately complain. However, there is absolutely no way that their primary remit is safety, and it is actually insulting to the people of this country that they continue to spout this line and expect us to believe it. I would have a lot more respect for GoSafe and for the Gardai if they just called it what it is, and dropped the nonsense "safety" element of it.

They also need to rethink the operation of the GoSafe system. As it stands, I know the four or five spots where they are likely to be parked on my daily driving, and I also know that they absolutely will not be parked anywhere else. It sort of defeats the purpose if Im watching out for them in isolated 500m stretches of road, safe in the knowledge that I wont be caught anywhere else. The whole purpose of speed vans is that they are supposed to be random; you are supposed to have the threat of meeting them around every corner on every road you drive (within reason of course). There is no threat to the way they operate any more, unless you have a lapse in concentration and happen to forget where one might be parked...

There is no doubt in my mind that they are only there to generate revenue. Was travelling towards Dub this morning and there they were on the motorway just before Naas. In the pitch dark at 05.40. They saved lots of lives ok..

If I understand, like back home in Italy the driver who likes speed say cameras are for making money? Like my home it is showing they do not make money, but people still are saying they are not for safe driving but are for making money. Who would make business like this, only insane people?

mikeecho

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I understand, like back home in Italy the driver who likes speed say cameras are for making money? Like my home it is showing they do not make money, but people still are saying they are not for safe driving but are for making money. Who would make business like this, only insane people?

GoSafe are making profit.
The state is operating at a loss.

Article does not agree

"While the income derived from fines arising from speed camera prosecutions covered less than half of the €16m annual operating cost of the Go Safe system"

Mikros

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

There is no doubt in my mind that they are only there to generate revenue. Was travelling towards Dub this morning and there they were on the motorway just before Naas. In the pitch dark at 05.40. They saved lots of lives ok..

If they were there for revenue generating they are doing a shocking poor job of it. The fines generated only cover half the operating costs of GoSafe. As much as you might dislike them there is no way they are there for making money.

ironclaw

Mikros wrote: »

If they were there for revenue generating they are doing a shocking poor job of it. The fines generated only cover half the operating costs of GoSafe. As much as you might dislike them there is no way they are there for making money.

You have to ask yourself how much they are costing if the fines they generate (€80 a pop) are not covering their costs. Another black hole for the public's money.

They were on the N11 northbound on Friday morning at 7.50am just before the Enniskerry turn off. Its 100km/h there but as anyone who knows that road at that time, you'd be lucky to do 60km/h with the merging traffic from Bray. To boot, they were parked in the rear entrance to the school there and hence on private property.

djimi

Victor wrote: »

The Garda-operated vans do operate at random.

In theory. I reality they have their spots too. Its not often I pass a Garda speed camera and think "wow I havent seen them there before".

djimi

Mikros wrote: »

If they were there for revenue generating they are doing a shocking poor job of it. The fines generated only cover half the operating costs of GoSafe. As much as you might dislike them there is no way they are there for making money.

Whether it is about making money or about bumping up the figures to justify their existence, either way you dont have to look hard to see that they park the vans where they are more likely to catch people, not where they really need to slow people down as they would like you to think. Keep an eye out and see how many of them are parked within 100m of a reduction in speed limit; for the most part this will not be where the camera is most needed on a given stretch of road, but its where you are most likely to find them.

Mikros

djimi wrote: »

Whether it is about making money or about bumping up the figures to justify their existence, either way you dont have to look hard to see that they park the vans where they are more likely to catch people, not where they really need to slow people down as they would like you to think. Keep an eye out and see how many of them are parked within 100m of a reduction in speed limit; for the most part this will not be where the camera is most needed on a given stretch of road, but its where you are most likely to find them.

I'm sure there are examples of pointless placement, not disagreeing there. But if bumping figures / raising cash is the goal do you not think any half competent operator could at least meet their costs? I just don't agree with the idea they are a revenue generating tool - the facts clearly contradict that idea.

I don't know if they have saved lives as claimed, but based on my driving experience I do think more people pay attention to speed limits than before they were introduced - especially in known spots.

djimi

Mikros wrote: »

But if bumping figures / raising cash is the goal do you not think any half competent operator could at least meet their costs?

You can only catch what is there to be caught in fairness. Right now, it appears to me anyway (and seemingly a lot of other people) that they position the vans in such a way to ensure they catch the maximum number of cars. Chances are if they positioned the vans in other spots (ie where they are more visible, or further from speed limit changes) then their revenue would be even lower.

Mikros wrote: »

I just don't agree with the idea they are a revenue generating tool - the facts clearly contradict that idea.

Do they?

Odyssey 2005

I just haven't figured out the stroke yet. It was stated earlier that the Go Safe :rolleyes: vans cost 16/18 million to run each year,yet they are only taking in half of this. This is a private company that is costing uo 8/9 million per year to run:eek:. Yet the private company is making a fortune. The government is generating cash flow through these fines and is also generating extra income from insurance companies with the levies they impose on premiums( most companies have a no pp bonus scheme) and if you have any points you loose that bonus so increasing your premium and therefore an increased levy.
I hope this makes sense, but the long and the short of it is you would employ a lot of guards with vans and speed guns for 8m a year.
This seems to me to be a private company being treated like the public service.
Where's the stroke ?

mikeecho

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

I just haven't figured out the stroke yet. It was stated earlier that the Go Safe :rolleyes: vans cost 16/18 million to run each year,yet they are only taking in half of this. This is a private company that is costing uo 8/9 million per year to run:eek:. Yet the private company is making a fortune. The government is generating cash flow through these fines and is also generating extra income from insurance companies with the levies they impose on premiums( most companies have a no pp bonus scheme) and if you have any points you loose that bonus so increasing your premium and therefore an increased levy.
I hope this makes sense, but the long and the short of it is you would employ a lot of guards with vans and speed guns for 8m a year.
This seems to me to be a private company being treated like the public service.
Where's the stroke ?

Xaviour and his buddies are the ones benefiting financially.
THAT'S THE STROKE


and if you're truly interested, find out who xaviour was closely connected with at the time the gosafe contract was signed off.









Now if only someone would scratch my back

Chris_Heilong

Remember they tried getting us all to call them safety cameras instead of Speed cameras, just saying.

Primetime covered this and I think they found that cameras were not even set up correctly and would be catching people even when they were not speeding.

punisher5112

If lives are to be saved place them outside schools and improve road conditions and also take away blind corners/bends/junctions by clearing hedging and tress and raised ditches especially on small country roads.


Why aren't cars restricted to the amount of speed they can do then we would not get speeding fines.

Odyssey 2005

punisher5112 wrote: »

If lives are to be saved place them outside schools and improve road conditions and also take away blind corners/bends/junctions by clearing hedging and tress and raised ditches especially on small country roads.


Why aren't cars restricted to the amount of speed they can do then we would not get speeding fines.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

punisher5112

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Wish I had that much$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$;)