Gatso vans location selection

ironclaw

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this actually true? Do you guys have any credentials or are you just winding me up to make me happy, until the crushing fine slides in my letterbox?

The drivers were up in arms internally last year regarding how dangerous it was setting up (There is a lenghty-ish set up process required before they start that involves moving around the rear of the van) I believe the HSA and Gardai got involved, as you had a work place and a road traffic issue of vans, often in tight positions on the side of the road, and unlit for approaching traffic. Hence, if you have a warning beacon, its likely not in 'fine' mode. The operator could of course have left it on, or it could just be a new procedure of visibility as opposed to fine issuing. Who knows.

I'd be fairly confident you won't be fined. If you are report back, I'll buy you a pint :pac:

ironclaw

ironclaw wrote: »

I'd be fairly confident you won't be fined. If you are report back, I'll buy you a pint :pac:

Well if you're that confident let me say it was you driving my car! :P


In all seriousness though, I hope you're right. I do believe, however, that they have quite a big window in which to send out the fine? (something like 3 months?!)

Anyone know how long it actually tends to take?

pa990

betistuc wrote: »

Not seeing any gps co ordinates on my fixed charge notice. Any point in emailing them and pleading my case? . 25/03/16 is my pay by date.

Gps details usually on the larger photo, that has to be requested.

They are for the garda speed van photos anyway

pa990

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well if you're that confident let me say it was you driving my car! :P


In all seriousness though, I hope you're right. I do believe, however, that they have quite a big window in which to send out the fine? (something like 3 months?!)

Anyone know how long it actually tends to take?

6 months less 56days.

So, its something like up to 4 months to send out a fine

Usually arrives out within 2weeks, providing the car is correctly registered etc

betistuc

pa990 wrote: »

Easily proved.
The ticket will have the gps coordinates.
The radar operates at a set angle, if memory serves me right, I think it's 23.5°.

The radar system will take photos of all approaching cars at X distance, and receding cars at Y distance from the radar.

Fight your tickets and report back please... cos ppl rarely do.

Just received the gps co ordinates from nro@garda.ie . they are
+53.40725,-6.42023 Comes up on google maps as very close to the end of the M3

pa990

betistuc wrote: »

Just received the gps co ordinates from nro@garda.ie . they are
+53.40725,-6.42023 Comes up on google maps as very close to the end of the M3

The radar broadcasts at an angle of 22°
Can't remember what the beam spread angle is.
It has a range of 4 to 70 metres

Time to dust down your protractor and calculator

ironclaw

pa990 wrote: »

The radar broadcasts at an angle of 22°
Can't remember what the beam spread angle is.
It has a range of 4 to 70 metres

Time to dust down your protractor and calculator

Rule of thumb is twice the width of the road away. Give or take a fraction. At these speeds, impossible to tell.

betistuc

laserlad2010 wrote: »

I've been meaning to complain about that location. You come into the van's LOS during the 120km/h stretch, then hit the 100km/h sign. At which point were you caught speeding?

I've passed the van twice and if I'm sent a fine I'll challenge it asking them to state the exact distance relative to the signs - prove I was doing 110 in the 100 zone and not in the 120

Hi laserlad . Did you have a look at those gps coordinates I posted (36). What do you think. Does the van look close enough to 120kph limit to merit a challenge

pa990

betistuc wrote: »

Hi laserlad . Did you have a look at those gps coordinates I posted (36). What do you think. Does the van look close enough to 120kph limit to merit a challenge

How far is that point from the speed limit sign?

betistuc

pa990 wrote: »

How far is that point from the speed limit sign?

Hard to work out. On google maps distance from end of orange coloured road (motorway) to gosafe van location is only 23.33 mts (76.66 ft). I can't be sure how far back 100kph signs were located.

Jayop

I've never been done by one of these but the locations of them around me are so so stupid. One is in a 100kmph zone that you'd need to be driving a Ferrari to actually go over the limit. It's on a very short straight with two very tight corners either end. No-one speeds there. It is an accident spot when there's ice and snow and cars regularly leave the road but that's the only accidents and they are not caused by people going over the 100kmph limit, they're caused by people going over 40kmph when the road isn't able for it.

These vans are a farce and have in effect caused more danger on Irish roads since their introduction. The gov have replaced large numbers of Traffic cops with these revenue generators and as such it's much rarer now to see traffic stops for things like tax, drinking, checking lights, tyres etc. Those used to be common place. I was once breathalyzed three times in the three weeks about ten years ago. I honestly don't think I've been stopped by a Guard apart from when accompanying customs in the last five years.

pa990

Jayop wrote: »

.....................
These vans are a farce and have in effect caused more danger on Irish roads since their introduction.....

Source please.

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

Source please.

My source is common sense. If you replace one third of the traffic cop branch with speed vans that can only do one thing (and badly at that) rather than check for drink driving, bald tires, blown bulbs, no NCT etc then how could that lead to anything other than more danger.


Please don't quote one small part of a post and leave out the part that actually answers your question. Not every post on the internet has to be fully researched and backed up with hard evidence. People can have an opinion and honestly selective quoting and saying "source please" is probably the most irritating and cheap way of debating.

laserlad2010

betistuc wrote: »

Hi laserlad . Did you have a look at those gps coordinates I posted (36). What do you think. Does the van look close enough to 120kph limit to merit a challenge

betistuc wrote: »

Hard to work out. On google maps distance from end of orange coloured road (motorway) to gosafe van location is only 23.33 mts (76.66 ft). I can't be sure how far back 100kph signs were located.

I'd say you have a chance. Wherever the M3 is signposted as finished, thats where the 100km/hr sign is. Same poles.

I'm not issuing legal advice at all, but logic would say that you could ask them to prove that the GPS co-ordinates are from after the 100km/hr sign. Unless you're doing over 120 then you're goosed:(

ironclaw

Jayop wrote: »

My source is common sense. If you replace one third of the traffic cop branch with speed vans that can only do one thing (and badly at that) rather than check for drink driving, bald tires, blown bulbs, no NCT etc then how could that lead to anything other than more danger.


Please don't quote one small part of a post and leave out the part that actually answers your question. Not every post on the internet has to be fully researched and backed up with hard evidence. People can have an opinion and honestly selective quoting and saying "source please" is probably the most irritating and cheap way of debating.

As can be seen by my countless threads here, I'm not an advocate of the vans. But you haven't backed up your piece with any evidence. You're common sense argument is flawed as the number of Gardai has remained the same since the introduction. They did not replace the Gardai, they freed them up. I'd far rather a Garda doing some real work such as following up on incidents and responding to calls, that sitting on the side of the road with a laser gun. I'd rather see them patrolling, than static. I do agree with you we went through a patch with very little visible enforcement but in the last 6 to 9 months, I've seen (And perhaps its placebo or whatnot) what I believe to be an increase in Garda visibility.

The case whether the vans work or not is debatable, as seen by the mega thread here. I'm of the opinion they don't act as a deterrent but they do make someone think, even momentarily about there speed. What that effect has is entirely up to the person themselves. Let's be frank, for the majority it has none at all. A mixture of ignorance and arrogance in their abilities. I would have far more favor of these vans if they conducted tax, insurance and NCT checks. This I believe is a natural progression and would free Garda resources even more, considering the ANPR system is non-existent.

pa990

Jayop wrote: »

My source is common sense. If you replace one third of the traffic cop branch with speed vans that can only do one thing (and badly at that) rather than check for drink driving, bald tires, blown bulbs, no NCT etc then how could that lead to anything other than more danger.


Please don't quote one small part of a post and leave out the part that actually answers your question. Not every post on the internet has to be fully researched and backed up with hard evidence. People can have an opinion and honestly selective quoting and saying "source please" is probably the most irritating and cheap way of debating.

The vans if anything have freeded up an every more scarce police force to perform other tasks. Such as bulbs etc.
there is however a massive shortage of police.

But can u exclaim how have the vans created more of a danger.. The rest of your post that I didn't quote didn't explain that point.
I just don't where the danger element comes from.

Jayop

There's several hundred less traffic cops. That equates to more dangerous roads. It's not some giant leap in logic.

pa990

Jayop wrote: »

There's several hundred less traffic cops. That equates to more dangerous roads. It's not some giant leap in logic.

less cops = more dangerous roads, agreed

but that is as a result of the embargo on police recruitment and massive amounts of retirement.

How are the vans dangerous ???

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

less cops = more dangerous roads, agreed

but that is as a result of the embargo on police recruitment and massive amounts of retirement.

How are the vans dangerous ???

Because the vans are being used to replace traffic cops.

GM228

Jayop wrote: »

Because the vans are being used to replace traffic cops.

Have you anything to back that up?

Gatso vans and reduction in the traffic corps is not related unless you can show it is?

Surely it's more accurate to say Gatso vans are supplementing the traffic corps as opposed to replacing it.

Numbers in the traffic corps were upped years ago around 2009 I think to try to reduce the numbers of fatalities on the roads, with annual fatalities now at a 12 year low that original plan has been achieved so it's reasonable to see the corps reduced accordingly back to the original level. I'm not saying the level is correct when they are increased for a purpose and that purpose is served i can see why they would be reduced especially with the increasing demand on resources for Gardaí to deal with rural and gangland crime.

Gardaí numbers have fallen all round in all divisions, not just the traffic division.

ironclaw

GM228 wrote: »

Numbers in the traffic corps were upped years ago around 2009 I think to try to reduce the numbers of fatalities on the roads, with annual fatalities now at a 12 year low that original plan has been achieved so it's reasonable to see the corps reduced accordingly back to the original level. I'm not saying the level is correct when they are increased for a purpose and that purpose is served i can see why they would be reduced especially with the increasing demand on resources for Gardaí to deal with rural and gangland crime.

I agree with you, however I don't agree with the 'plan' being the reason behind fall in road deaths. 2008 / 2009 saw massive reductions in road traffic as people didn't travel by car as much due to unemployment in addition to massive emigration from the worst effected regions of the country (Which coincidentally were the accident black spots) My commute to work has risen from 20 mins in 2013 to close to 45 on a 'bad' day now. Same roads, same time, same route. Its pure volume as people get back to work and on the road. More cars means a greater chance in collisions, so I'd be willing to wager you will see an increase in crashes and fatalities over the next 2 to 5 years.

Jayop

GM228 wrote: »

Have you anything to back that up?

Gatso vans and reduction in the traffic corps is not related unless you can show it is?

Surely it's more accurate to say Gatso vans are supplementing the traffic corps as opposed to replacing it.

Numbers in the traffic corps were upped years ago around 2009 I think to try to reduce the numbers of fatalities on the roads, with annual fatalities now at a 12 year low that original plan has been achieved so it's reasonable to see the corps reduced accordingly back to the original level. I'm not saying the level is correct when they are increased for a purpose and that purpose is served i can see why they would be reduced especially with the increasing demand on resources for Gardaí to deal with rural and gangland crime.

Gardaí numbers have fallen all round in all divisions, not just the traffic division.

Aye supplementing. Totally accurate way of saying it lol.

Safety vans introduced in 2010.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=5590

Traffic corps numbers peaked in 2009 and since then 4 from every 10 have been retired or otherwise deployed and not replaced. That's a 40% reduction.

Numbers in the rest of the force as a whole has dropped by around 13% so it's a significant difference.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-traffic-corps-numbers-plummeting-committee-hears-1.2443152

Your next answer is going to be that causation isn't the same as correlation but if you honestly think that if we didn't have these "safety vans" the traffic crops numbers would have dropped 40% then you're only kidding yourself.

Enforcement has fallen by 39% since 2010. Fact.

These safety vans have allowed those in charge of the Traffic Corps to decimate it's numbers and replace them with money generating machines. That is more danger on the roads as a direct result.

pa990

Jayop wrote: »

Aye supplementing. Totally accurate way of saying it lol.

Safety vans introduced in 2010.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=5590

Traffic corps numbers peaked in 2009 and since then 4 from every 10 have been retired or otherwise deployed and not replaced. That's a 40% reduction.

Numbers in the rest of the force as a whole has dropped by around 13% so it's a significant difference.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-traffic-corps-numbers-plummeting-committee-hears-1.2443152

Your next answer is going to be that causation isn't the same as correlation but if you honestly think that if we didn't have these "safety vans" the traffic crops numbers would have dropped 40% then you're only kidding yourself.

Enforcement has fallen by 39% since 2010. Fact.

These safety vans have allowed those in charge of the Traffic Corps to decimate it's numbers and replace them with money generating machines. That is more danger on the roads as a direct result.

and 2009 was when they stopped recruiting gardai, not just traffic corp, but they stopped recruiting all gardai, due to budgetary constraints.
So naturally numbers would begin dropping.
Ppl retire and noone to replace them.

As for money generating machines... well, they are actually costing a lot more than they bring in.

now how exactly are the gosafe vans dangerous

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

and 2009 was when they stopped recruiting gardai, not just traffic corp, but they stopped recruiting all gardai, due to budgetary constraints.
So naturally numbers would begin dropping.
Ppl retire and noone to replace them.

now how exactly are the gosafe vans dangerous

So you ask me a question, I give you a detailed answer with sources and you completely ignore it. Honestly I'll reply this time but I'm done then. Nothing worse than debating a point with someone who just ignores large parts of a post then asked the question that has already been answered.

The numbers in the traffic core dropped about 4 times more than that of the rest of the Guards. That is as a direct result of them being replaced with these "go safe" vans. As a result of them being used as a replacement for actual traffic corps the roads are more dangerous. The introduction of the go safe vans have resulted in more dangerous roads due to almost 40% less traffic enforcement.



(just to make it easy for you I've bolded the relevant part)

pa990

ehhhh.. the vans didnt replace the traffic corp.
They were intended to run in tandem.

The recession stopped the recruitment of gardai, and thus caused a reduction in numbers.
The GoSafe vans had nothing to do with the reduction of garda numbers, unless GoSafe are responsible for the economic crash

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

ehhhh.. the vans didnt replace the traffic corp.
They were intended to run in tandem.

The recession stopped the recruitment of gardai, and thus caused a reduction in numbers.
The GoSafe vans had nothing to do with the reduction of garda numbers, unless GoSafe are responsible for the economic crash

Are you just going to completely ignore that the traffic corps have reduced 4 times more than the rest of the force?

Why do you think that is?

I had even highlighted it for you but you still missed the important part. This is the third time I'm pointing it out for you.

pa990

Jayop wrote: »

Are you just going to completely ignore that the traffic corps have reduced 4 times more than the rest of the force?

Why do you think that is?

I had even highlighted it for you but you still missed the important part. This is the third time I'm pointing it out for you.

Traffic corps arent recruited directly, they come from the regular front line force.
That same front line has been depleted due to a recruitment embargo. and a massive amount of retirements.

No point in having someone with a hairdryer at the roadside if there is noone to man a car to go to a burglary/dvsa/shoplifter etc



Whats dangerous is the Governments attitude to having a properly resourced police force.

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

Traffic corps arent recruited directly, they come from the regular front line force.
That same front line has been depleted due to a recruitment embargo. and a massive amount of retirements.

No point in having someone with a hairdryer at the roadside if there is noone to man a car to go to a burglary/dvsa/shoplifter etc

You've not answered the question.

Do you not think that there's a correlation in the addition of these vans and the fact the traffic force has depleted 4 times more than the rest of the guards.

If there were no vans then there would have to be more guards. Surely that's simple enough logic that everyone can agree to it.

ironclaw

Jayop wrote: »

Why do you think that is?

Hazarding a guess, its one of the most expensive corps from a man power and logistic perspective. You need to cover the entire country, 24/7 as opposed to just having a few people in a station. Cars on the road, kit out, fuel.. The list goes on. Take a road haulier as a private sector equivalent, anything to do with the road is expensive and it would be no different for the Gardai. However recently Traffic Corp got a swathe of new cars and new members, so your theory isn't exactly water tight in the modern context.

Not to mention, at least anecdotally I've heard, its the worst division to end up in and is not well liked amoungst rank members. Would you want to be at the receiving end of a hot headed motorist who you have to flog points on to, day in, day out? There's a reason traffic cops are the butt of most jokes in the movies. I take my hat off to them and am in no way applying my own view here, but its what I've heard from sources within the ranks.

Finally, to suggest the top brass in the Gardai, remembering its most definitely a 'boys club', would be ok with their members losing out on juicy overtime to a private company is further nails in the coffin of your theory. They'd also loose out on productivity figures in terms of enforcement, lowering their ability to argue for budget. Which would you prefer? 'We gave out 2000 points last week' or 'GoSafe handed out 2000 points in our area, and the 4 members it freed up did XYZ' I'd go with the latter personally.

Jayop

ironclaw wrote: »

Hazarding a guess, its one of the most expensive corps from a man power and logistic perspective. You need to cover the entire country, 24/7 as opposed to just having a few people in a station. Cars on the road, kit out, fuel.. The list goes on. Take a road haulier as a private sector equivalent, anything to do with the road is expensive and it would be no different for the Gardai. However recently Traffic Corp got a swathe of new cars and new members, so your theory isn't exactly water tight in the modern context.

Not to mention, at least anecdotally I've heard, its the worst division to end up in and is not well liked amoungst rank members. Would you want to be at the receiving end of a hot headed motorist who you have to flog points on to, day in, day out? There's a reason traffic cops are the butt of most jokes in the movies. I take my hat off to them and am in no way applying my own view here, but its what I've heard from sources within the ranks.

Finally, to suggest the top brass in the Gardai, remembering its most definitely a 'boys club', would be ok with their members losing out on juicy overtime to a private company is further nails in the coffin of your theory. They'd also loose out on productivity figures in terms of enforcement, lowering their ability to argue for budget. Which would you prefer? 'We gave out 2000 points last week' or 'GoSafe handed out 2000 points in our area, and the 4 members it freed up did XYZ' I'd go with the latter personally.

So your reasoning goes that it's more expensive to un the traffic corps because of fuel and vehicles. Do you think that the speed vans just appeared on the driveway of Phoenix park for free? Do they not need fuel?

It's a ridiculous argument.

I worked in Ford service for years and knew loads of traffic cops personally pretty well and I'm friends with a few normal Guards now and I've never encountered any of the points you made about it being unpopular. Infact I believe that it was over subscribed in terms of people hoping to get that duty.

As for hte last paragraph, I honestly don't know what to make of it. It completely ignores the actual fact the corps have been reduced and makes no sense to me.

As for a preference for what points are handed out, I'd prefer to see dangerous drivers and unsafe cars being detected rather than a speed van shooting fish in a barrel.