Gatso vans location selection

Jayop

And ironclaw you still ignore the one simple question I've asked.

Would the traffic core have been allowed to be depleted 4 times more than the rest of the force if there were none of these vans??

pa990

Jayop wrote: »

And ironclaw you still ignore the one simple question I've asked.

Would the traffic core have been allowed to be depleted 4 times more than the rest of the force if there were none of these vans??

YES

the same way the regular garda number have been delpleted, the same as community policing numbers have been depleted, the same as every other dept of the gardai has been depleted

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

YES

Not sure why the large font considering you skirted away from the question and point I was making for about 4 posts.

OK, I honestly don't see how you can come to that conclusion. If you honestly believe that even if there were no speed vans on the road the traffic core would have been allowed to lose 40% of it's numbers, 4 times more than what the rest of the force lost then I'm flabbergasted. There's already 40% less enforcement so with no speed vans on the road and the same reduction in Garda numbers you'd have probably 60%+ less enforcement.

Very strange.

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

YES

the same way the regular garda number have been delpleted, the same as community policing numbers have been depleted, the same as every other dept of the gardai has been depleted

Nice edit

To answer that, you've continually ignored the key point that one branch has not been depleted to the same extent, it's lost 40% more. Carry on and ignore teh key figure though.

pa990

Jayop wrote: »

Nice edit

To answer that, you've continually ignored the key point that one branch has not been depleted to the same extent, it's lost 40% more. Carry on and ignore teh key figure though.

i could agree with you, but then two of us would be wrong

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

i could agree with you, but then two of us would be wrong

You keep saying over and over that the traffic corps have been reduced the same as the rest of the force while it's proven that they haven't.

It really is a pointless debate at this stage.

pa990

Jayop wrote: »

You keep saying over and over that the traffic corps have been reduced the same as the rest of the force while it's proven that they haven't.

It really is a pointless debate at this stage.

i've never said that the reduction has been the same % across every dept, but there have been cuts everywhere.

The vans whether they were introduced or not did not cause a 40% reduction in traffic corp numbers.

Traffic corp was reduced due to retirements, promotions, deaths and discharges. and the regualr gardai needing someone to sit in the car.

No point in having a traffic corp if there is none to deal with the day to day calls.

for the last time, numbers were reduced due to a recruitment embargo.
nothing to do wit the gosafe contract.

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

i've never said that the reduction has been the same % across every dept, but there have been cuts everywhere.

The vans whether they were introduced or not did not cause a 40% reduction in traffic corp numbers.

Traffic corp was reduced due to retirements, promotions, deaths and discharges. and the regualr gardai needing someone to sit in the car.

No point in having a traffic corp if there is none to deal with the day to day calls.

for the last time, numbers were reduced due to a recruitment embargo.
nothing to do wit the gosafe contract.

Oh but you did say that, over and over again you refused to acknowledge the difference between the depletion fo the traffic corps and the rest of the guards.

[QUOTE=GM228;99168176
Gardaí numbers have fallen all round in all divisions, not just the traffic division.[/QUOTE]

pa990 wrote: »

but they stopped recruiting all gardai, due to budgetary constraints.
So naturally numbers would begin dropping.
Ppl retire and noone to replace them.

pa990 wrote: »

The recession stopped the recruitment of gardai, and thus caused a reduction in numbers.

Since you like big fonts I'll highlight this one for you.

pa990 wrote: »

That same front line has been depleted due to a recruitment embargo. and a massive amount of retirements.

pa990 wrote: »

the same way the regular garda number have been delpleted, the same as community policing numbers have been depleted, the same as every other dept of the gardai has been depleted

You literally do say 3 times the word "same" and make other references to how it's the same.

If there was no vans they wouldn't have been able to lose so many traffic cops. That's a simple fact.

pa990

The whole GoSafe saga has been a massive flop.
It was reported in the media a year or two ago that the average detection rate is 2 vehicles per hour.
Now given that the vans generally park up for 3hrs at a time, they are contracted for something like 20,000hrs per annum, and the contact cost €17.2m per yr

That means they pull in €3.2m pa, yet cost the state €17.2m pa

And then there is the cost on the Garda side for processing and prosecuting.

These vans are a money pit.

But did not cause the reduction in Traffic Corp numbers.


(Allegedly the original sales pitch form redflex was that going on their research there would be a detection rate of circa 40 - 50%)



heres some bedtime reading
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/court-denied-go-safe-contract-355129.html

Jayop

No vans = more guards

pa990

Jayop wrote: »

No vans = more guards

Guards dont man the vans

pa990

more money = more guards

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

Guards dont man the vans

When did I infer that? The point that seems to be missing you is that if they didn't have the vans to fall back on they would be forced to have more guards on the road.

pa990 wrote: »

more money = more guards

Bingo, so take the money wasted on these farcical vans, employ more guards and have safer roads.

Thanks for agreeing with me. I know we'd get there in the end.

pa990

Jayop wrote: »

When did I infer that? The point that seems to be missing you is that if they didn't have the vans to fall back on they would be forced to have more guards on the road.



Bingo, so take the money wasted on these farcical vans, employ more guards and have safer roads.

Thanks for agreeing with me. I know we'd get there in the end.

but that still doesnt answer how the vans are a danger.

The policies of the Government and the Gardai are at fault (ie causing a danger) the vans themselves arent dangerous

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

but that still doesnt answer how the vans are a danger.

The policies of the Government and the Gardai are at fault (ie causing a danger) the vans themselves arent dangerous

It's going around in circles and you refuse to see how one thing is clearly associated with the other. If there were no vans there would be more guards therefore the introduction of the vans has caused a danger on the roads.

pa990

Jayop wrote: »

It's going around in circles and you refuse to see how one thing is clearly associated with the other. If there were no vans there would be more guards therefore the introduction of the vans has caused a danger on the roads.

You've stated that the vans are a danger

Are the vans a danger, or are the policies a danger.

I'll answer that for you.. it's the policies.
The vans themselves do not cause a danger to the general public.

Jayop

pa990 wrote: »

You've stated that the vans are a danger

Are the vans a danger, or are the policies a danger.

I'll answer that for you.. it's the policies.
The vans themselves do not cause a danger to the general public.

And guns don't kill people.

That's literally the same argument you're making.

GM228

ironclaw wrote: »

I agree with you, however I don't agree with the 'plan' being the reason behind fall in road deaths

See below.

Jayop wrote: »

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.

I do believe that the numbers would have dropped either way as the number of road deaths has fallen dramatically and that is what the 2007-2009 traffic corps number increased aimed to do.

Jayop wrote: »

Enforcement has fallen by 39% since 2010. Fact.

Fact is incorrect, it's quite the opposite, a 39% in the traffic corps does not mean a 39% reduction in enforcement, whilst the traffic corps is a dedicated core, other menbers of the force also regularly pertake in traffic duties and always have, infact if you look at the official statistics you will see quite the opposite of what you suggest, a large number of traffic offences and checkpoints have actually increased since the vans came and the corps numbers have dropped!

Jayop wrote: »

So you ask me a question, I give you a detailed answer with sources and you completely ignore it.

Your sources prove nothing (except how many Gardaí there are and when the vans started which we already know), and they don't asnwer the question as to why a Gatso van is more dangerous or replaces the traffic corps?

Jayop wrote: »

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.

In your opinion!



In 2003 the then Government introduced policy to reduce the number of roads deaths as shown here in the 2004 Garda Annual Report:-
http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/annualpolicingplan2004.pdf

Number of road traffic collisions involving death or serious injury per 1,000 population. Reduce the number of road collisions involving death in line with Government strategy.

Later in 2004 following the the Strategic Review of Traffic Policing by a Garda working group it was decided in order to implement the prinary government strategy of reducing road deaths that the corps would have to be strengthened if they wanted to reduce fatalities and so it was decided to increase the corps for that purpose.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/garda-traffic-corps-aims-to-cut-road-deaths-1.1167750

Road deaths were reduced, but as a result of the bigger corps or safer cars/drivers etc is debatable, but nevertheless the aim was achieved. The corps was increased for that purpose and the purpose was fulfilled.

It's easy to say a 13% reduction to the force as a whole compared to a 39% reduction in the corps, but looking at the bigger picture the % of the entire force assigned to the corps was only a 2% drop, other departments have actually had bigger cuts overall.

The fact of the matter is traditionally the traffic corps has been around 4% of the overall forces numbers, in 2008-2009 it was upped to 8% of the force to implement government policy and once that policy was satisfied the numbers began decreasing (not helped by the recruitment ban mind you) towards the normal traditional levels. Currently 6% of the force is in the corps (as I said a 2% drop).

The start of the decline in numbers in the corps began in 2009 before the vans appeared and even now despite having a smaller force we have a higher % of the force in the corps then we ever did before the policy of reducing road deaths was implemented before we had the vans.

Jayop

GM228 wrote: »

In your opinion!

No, not in my opinion.

Deputy Garda Commissioner John Twomey told the Oireachtas Committee on Transport that the numbers of the Traffic Corps had dropped to 738 at present.
Garda enforcement The current strength of the unit, which spearheads the Garda’s enforcement of the penalty points system and drink-driving laws, as well as all other aspects of road-traffic enforcement, has fallen by 39 per cent since 2009.

If you remove the Traffic core from the numbers of guards then and now the difference is 4 times greater.

I

GM228

Jayop wrote: »

No, not in my opinion.

That is as a direct result of them being replaced with these "go safe" vans.

I'm not disputing the number drop, the above is "in your opinion ".

Jayop wrote: »

If you remove the Traffic core from the numbers of guards then and now the difference is 4 times greater.

That statement makes no sense to me, what difference is 4 times greater? I'm not sure what you are saying TBH.

Jayop

The percentage drop from the rest of the guards compared to the drop in the traffic corps.


It's glaringly obvious to me that if there was no vans they wouldn't have been able to have such a drop in the number of guards.

GM228

Jayop wrote: »

The percentage drop from the rest of the guards compared to the drop in the traffic corps.


It's glaringly obvious to me that if there was no vans they wouldn't have been able to have such a drop in the number of guards.

You have no idea what percentage drops occured to other divisions of the Guards so you have no idea of what effected what. You only know the drop in one division vs the overall force.

Again that's all your opinion which has nothing to back it up, but I've shown why corps numbers increased and why they dropped, they didn't drop due to the vans, they started dropping well before the vans started as government policy was satisfied.

Jayop

GM228 wrote: »

You have no idea what percentage drops occured to other divisions of the Guards so you have no idea of what effected what. You only know the drop in one division vs the overall force.

Again that's all your opinion which has nothing to back it up, but I've shown why corps numbers increased and why they dropped, they didn't drop due to the vans, they started dropping well before the vans started as government policy was satisfied.

Well before the vans started?? The force was at it's peak in 2009 and the vans were introduced in 2010. How is that "well before"?? At the very least they'll have known the vans were coming on line.

As for other divisions, I never claimed to know that and I don't see the relevance. The point is and was that the traffic core has dropped 4 times more than the rest of the force. Rather than throwing up superfluous points about what I do or do not know would you acknowledge that?


Regardless, I've spend way too much time on this already to go over the whole thing again with you.

GM228

Jayop wrote: »

Well before the vans started?? The force was at it's peak in 2009 and the vans were introduced in 2010. How is that "well before"?? At the very least they'll have known the vans were coming on line.

Traffic corps numbers peaked in 2009 and when they peaked they then started reducing and by the end of 2009 they had dropped significantly.

In 2004/2005 government policy dictated a high priority on reducing road deaths which resulted in increasing the traffic corps from the normal size to achieve this, a special standalone budget was specifically allocated for this increased corps. In 2004 it was envisaged that the corps but peak by 2008/2009 which it did, (I wonder if they knew in 2004 about the vans?), the primary goal was achieved, deaths were reduced and so was the standalone traffic corps budget.

The core was increased from it's normal strenght to a higher strength for a specific purpose which was achieved and then reduced accordingly. But yet even after the reduction we still have a higher corps size then the traditional size has been, before the government policy to reduce deaths we actually had a lot less in the traffic corps and traditionally always had then we do now. Before the policy we had 531 in the corps, now we have 740.

On the greater scale of things around 4-5% of the force was always traditionally assigned to the core, now 6% is assigned so it is still a highet force than it has been traditionally. Now I'm not saying I agree with the numbers in the corps because I don't, that's a different arguement, but the reason why the numbers have reduced unproportionally to the overall force isn't due to GoSafe vans.

Jayop wrote: »

As for other divisions, I never claimed to know that and I don't see the relevance. The point is and was that the traffic core has dropped 4 times more than the rest of the force. Rather than throwing up superfluous points about what I do or do not know would you acknowledge that?

I never said you claimed to know about other divisions, the point I made is you only know the overall force figures vs the traffic corps figures, it's relevant because the traffic corps is only one division of the overall force and what effects other areas of the force effect the entire force and each division in different ways.

A 13% overall force drop does not mean an automatic 13% drop in the corps or any other division of the force for that matter. Some divisions had a higher % drop than the traffic corps and there's no GoSafe cans to account for other divisions cuts in numbers.

A large proportion of the 13% drop occured within higher ranking positions most of which occured outside the corps, to fill those positions resources are drawn from all divisions. But it's worth noting that now recruitment has started again there traffic corps numbers are to actually start growing again-based on your arguement does that mean that there are less GoSafe vans and they are been replaced by Gardaí?

Some divisions are hit more than others depending on many things such as suitability, service, location, policing and government policy and crime trends.

The traffic corps is understaffed in my opinion, but so to is every other division of the Gardaí and they are all competing for extra resources.

Jayop wrote: »

Regardless, I've spend way too much time on this already to go over the whole thing again with you.

What exactly is there to go over?

1. Your statement of force size vs corps size?

We all know that, no need to go over that again, that's not debatable.

2. Your statement that GoSafe vans are more dangerous/resulted in the corps number drop?

Again that is your opinion which you are entitled to make, but it isn't proven by any evidence or fact, you shouldn't present it as absolute fact without something solid to back it up.

As I said you are perfectly entitled to your opinion which I respect but I feel in my opinion you have added up 2 and 2 and come up with a figure of 8 without looking at the bigger picture.

You either havn't or don't want to take into consideration or have and dismissed what has traditionally been the normal corps size, the reason it was increased in the first place and subsequently reduced, the recruitment embargo, retirements, policing policies, government policy, budgeting, resourcing or overall policing requirements such as an increasing need to deal with rural and gangland crime which is on the up.

3. Or the statement you made as fact that enforcement is down by 39%?

This is infact rubbish, it's the total opposite, publicly available statistics will show you that.



At this point despite showing some reasoning behind the reductions in my previous large post and getting the simple reply of:-

Jayop wrote: »

No, not in my opinion.

If you remove the Traffic core from the numbers of guards then and now the difference is 4 times greater.

I'll echo your own posting:-

Jayop wrote: »

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.