Go safe vans .... Go Bang!!!!

The12thMan

another judge gives a giant kicking to the private speed camera company.


Courts dismissed more than 1,300 speeding cases in five years (RTE News)

(i can't post a link as i am too new)

The12thMan

"Judge MacBride said they often operated just inside or outside 30km/h zones, in places where detecting offences was like fishing in a "goldfish bowl.
This was rejected by an inspector from the Garda Fixed Penalty Office, who was adamant they were in "black spot" areas and "saving 25 lives a year on Irish roads".

(i can't edit my original post)

boardsuser1

The12thMan wrote: »

"Judge MacBride said they often operated just inside or outside 30km/h zones, in places where detecting offences was like fishing in a "goldfish bowl.
This was rejected by an inspector from the Garda Fixed Penalty Office, who was adamant they were in "black spot" areas and "saving 25 lives a year on Irish roads".

(i can't edit my original post)

Even the judge could see the vast majority of those vans were revenue generating ones.well done to Judge Sean McBride for unravelling this load of crap, the more of it the better

Buona Fortuna

The12thMan wrote: »

"Judge MacBride said they often operated just inside or outside 30km/h zones, in places where detecting offences was like fishing in a "goldfish bowl.
This was rejected by an inspector from the Garda Fixed Penalty Office, who was adamant they were in "black spot" areas and "saving 25 lives a year on Irish roads".

(i can't edit my original post)

Here's the link

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1203/664393-judge-drops-speed-cases-involving-go-safe-vans/

Nekarsulm

For once, Judge Mc BrIde is talking sense. There is a spot outside Drumlish, Co.Longford, where the speed van is a continuous fixture. On a wide road at the end of a half mile straight.Catching people going 51 mph all day long. It got me last summer, and on the day if court, there were eight of us all for the same time and day. And how many more had just paid the fine and so were not present? money making scheme.

Nino Brown

I just don't get the attitude against them. It's been shown time and time again that it's not a money making scheme. Go-safe are paid for enforcement hours, so they don't profit more, from more tickets. and if I remember correctly the government lose money after go-safe's fees are subtracted from revenue. But the facts are not conducive to a rant, so lets ignore them.
I understand they are a pain, they piss me off too, but they are big vans with bright yellow stickers, the locations are well known, there's signs up marking where they will be, and most importantly, you have to be right up their arse to get caught by them. So if you're not observant enough to see the big white van with the bright yellow stickers, you really need to slow down anyway because you're clearly oblivious to whats going on around you.

The12thMan

i have No problem with the principle of the Go safe vans But i do have a problem where some of them are.
at the end of Long straight bit of roads, we all have examples...

put them on dangerous bends, roads. for example: there are 2 between cork city and Bandon BOTH on very wide, and straight bits of road. and NONE between bandon and clonakilty, where the road is more dangerous and surface is worse but people still drive at same speed.

my 2 cents...

corktina

that's the flaw in the system. You cannot put them on dangerous bends because it is dangerous.

Take the N72 west of Mallow. The dangerous bit is outside the Racecourse Service Station where the road is narrow. The rest of the road in either direction is modern with hard shoulders but it is here that the Vans are located because it is not safe to put them on the dangerous bit.
It's a flawed system and fixed cameras which could be located safely anywhere is what should have been provided.

Aka Ishur

The12thMan wrote: »

i have No problem with the principle of the Go safe vans But i do have a problem where some of them are.
at the end of Long straight bit of roads, we all have examples...

put them on dangerous bends, roads. for example: there are 2 between cork city and Bandon BOTH on very wide, and straight bits of road. and NONE between bandon and clonakilty, where the road is more dangerous and surface is worse but people still drive at same speed.

my 2 cents...

I'd agree with you that the spot they pick just before you get into Bandon is rediculous but a good few people have died at the spot after the roundabout at halfway so i would support them there.

obezyana

A go safe van used to sit just off a roundabout where i live where the the speed limit goes from 100kph (before roundabout) to 60kh (immediately after) to 80kph (further on). There has never been a crash on this road so it was purely just to catch people who might be accelerating a bit over 60kph after the roundabout. Purely motivated by easy money.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Most of those were on the little roads off the N71 by that diagram and not the n71 itself.

Atomic Pineapple

It's not motivated by easy money as others have clearly and concisely shown they don't make any money for Go Safe and cost the government money rather than making them any.

The reason the vans are in locations where people are easy targets is because of the poor short term strategy of motor safety here and that is if you catch people going slightly over the limit but still perfectly safe in locations like this, they get points and they slow down for the next 3 years.

The strategy is to spread a fear of getting caught to get people to slow down rather than actually catching people who dangerously speed and that is why you see vans in relatively safe locations looking for easy targets and not for revenue generation as any tiny bit of research would show that they don't make money.

This is of course just my opinion based on my own research.

The12thMan

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Most of those were on the little roads off the N71 by that diagram and not the n71 itself.

thats what i was going to say, but i see his point.

obezyana

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

It's not motivated by easy money as others have clearly and concisely shown they don't make any money for Go Safe and cost the government money rather than making them any.

The reason the vans are in locations where people are easy targets is because of the poor short term strategy of motor safety here and that is if you catch people going slightly over the limit but still perfectly safe in locations like this, they get points and they slow down for the next 3 years.

The strategy is to spread a fear of getting caught to get people to slow down rather than actually catching people who dangerously speed and that is why you see vans in relatively safe locations looking for easy targets and not for revenue generation as any tiny bit of research would show that they don't make money.

This is of course just my opinion based on my own research.

So its the government wasting money then???? So tell me how is that any better then the Go Safe vans actually making easy money.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

The12thMan wrote: »

thats what i was going to say, but i see his point.

I don't really.
And theres not really much point in speed cameras without having a fit set of roads/network of roads to put them on.
No point putting them on motorways/DC's as the judge mentioned.

Put them (not in vans) on twisty bendy roads where people died.

The12thMan

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

It's not motivated by easy money as others have clearly and concisely shown they don't make any money for Go Safe and cost the government money rather than making them any.

The reason the vans are in locations where people are easy targets is because of the poor short term strategy of motor safety here and that is if you catch people going slightly over the limit but still perfectly safe in locations like this, they get points and they slow down for the next 3 years.

The strategy is to spread a fear of getting caught to get people to slow down rather than actually catching people who dangerously speed and that is why you see vans in relatively safe locations looking for easy targets and not for revenue generation as any tiny bit of research would show that they don't make money.

This is of course just my opinion based on my own research.

and that is a perfectly reasonable explanation. why did they just not say that. nobody can argue with this logic.... (stands back and waits for argument)

The12thMan

OSI, do you have a link for that data?

want to check out a few other roads.

mickdw

The issue I have with go safe is the fact that are known according to their own operators to skimp on their roadside setup procedure with a result of incorrect speed, a higher speed being recorded against the motorist.
If I read an earlier post correctly and the go safe operation is a net cost to the state, well you would have to argue that the tax payers best interests are not being looked after and that go safe must really have negotiated a super, profit under all circumstances contract.

ratracer

My OH got a speeding ticket where the M6 becomes the N6 in athlone two weeks ago, doing 122 in a 100km/h zone. She should have known better, but this is an example where the van location has more to do with raising revenue than road safety.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

OSI wrote: »

Right pedant. Looking back at the map at the closest zoom level the map has and not allowing for any mapping errors at all there are 6 definite fatalities listed directly on that one road in that time frame.

Don't get your gti in a twist, the point you were making is not borne out in the map. That's all I was saying.

And, oh wow 6 fatalities? Yeah we must make legislation based off that.

ratracer wrote: »

My OH got a speeding ticket where the M6 becomes the N6 in athlone two weeks ago, doing 122 in a 100km/h zone. She should have known better, but this is an example where the van location has more to do with raising revenue than road safety.

+1
I know of many locations where the vans are regularly, around kildare dublin and meath.
Not one of them is a dangerous road. Most are straight roads, just past speed change signs.

Atomic Pineapple

obezyana wrote: »

So its the government wasting money then???? So tell me how is that any better then the Go Safe vans actually making easy money.

They are spending money in an attempt to save lives, I wouldn't consider that wasting money, I would consider their approach wrong instead.

NewApproach

If a bend is so sharp and dangerous that people are being killed, I don't see how parking a van at the side of the road will help in any way. They have to be on the straighter bits to be seen in enough time so as to not cause further incidents.

Gazzmonkey

They sit outside the parents house on a daily basis, on a straight section right behind of a speed limit sign on a road that never seen a crash.

Brings a smile to my face when I hear of another van burnt out :cool:

tommullane

I know of some ludicrous places speed vans have been put where the roads are wide and it seems like they're trying to catch people out. That's not the point though they have encouraged people to slow down and are helping to save lives. Regardless where they place a speed van there is still a speed limit there for a reason and that's to make sure everyone gets to their location safely. From having a good friend who was seriously injured (but fully recovered thank god) because of the driver who was speeding I have no pity on a person caught speeding by the vans as they were driving faster than the law says they should.

Gosub

The R741 out of Wexford regularly has a Go-Safe van camped out on the left side, northbound, just before the commercial test centre. The RSA website shows no collisions of any kind on this stretch of road. None, not even minor. Why would the van be placed there so regularly?

Ctrl Alt Delete

They are pure revenue generating / stat padding exercise.

Have a look at the stats of collisions over the past 10 years on this well used stretch of Dublin road by Blanchardstown and those two markers is where they always are and just so happens to be when the speed limit drops from 80kph to 50kph

http://postimg.org/image/qeug832hf/

Jawgap

Nino Brown wrote: »

I just don't get the attitude against them. It's been shown time and time again that it's not a money making scheme. Go-safe are paid for enforcement hours, so they don't profit more, from more tickets. and if I remember correctly the government lose money after go-safe's fees are subtracted from revenue. But the facts are not conducive to a rant, so lets ignore them.
I understand they are a pain, they piss me off too, but they are big vans with bright yellow stickers, the locations are well known, there's signs up marking where they will be, and most importantly, you have to be right up their arse to get caught by them. So if you're not observant enough to see the big white van with the bright yellow stickers, you really need to slow down anyway because you're clearly oblivious to whats going on around you.

I used to think they weren't revenue generating - then we asked our local sergeant if one could occasionally be placed in the vicinity of the school I was on the parents council of.

The TY class had done an excellent project showing that nearly 80% of drivers passing the school were speeding - their conclusion (and most people's on reading their report) was that it was an accident waiting to happen.

The local sergeant contacted the local traffic corps and passed on the report. The inspector was very complimentary of the report but said the road wasn't 'busy enough' (his words) for a van to be allocated!! So much for it being a risk mitigation measure!

We asked if the van that normally parks in the area on a road leading to the motorway might be re-positioned nearer the school - again, not a chance as they said it was in a 'good spot' when asked to clarify this it was clear the spot was good because there was plenty of traffic passing on the way to the motorway.

kenmccarthy

Mickdw is right on the money--- its been shown time and time again that they "skimp" on the roadside setup--- and its the motorist that pays the price.can anybody really argue that these are always located in appropriate locations??its a cashcow and great for stats but doubt if the whole exercise really does any good.the UK have shown them to be virtually useless and banned them in a lot of councils

ironclaw

I wish people didn't use the words 'money making' as these vans don't actually make the State any money. They lose money. They cost money. There is no profit what so ever, that I'm aware of. Even if they did make money, one major accident would wipe out the tally of fines in the expenses incurred by the State to clean it up. Taking last weeks figures off the top of my head of 4500 points issued, assuming they were all for speed, that's €12,000 last week. That's not even the drivers wage. Or as a really bad average €6,240,000 per year. Absolute squat.

There are far, far more efficient things to pay our money to. Like more Traffic Corp, actual driver education and maybe, just maybe, some decent ads on the rounds.

Ctrl Alt Delete

ironclaw wrote: »

I wish people didn't use the words 'money making' as these vans don't actually make the State any money.

They DO generate money for the state it's specified in the eTenders document that rebates are paid to the State and the company running the vans sure as hell aren't doing it for fun.

Gosub

OSI wrote: »

This road?

Yep, the van is located on that nice straight bit north of Ferrybank, the only place with no recorded collisions.

kenmccarthy

How did you turn 4500 penalty points into €12000????? What do yoi think the fine is?? €3.50??? Say a driver is paid €15 per hour anf he nabs two mothets collecting their children from school maybe doing 52km in a 50 zone--- at €80 a pop that's €160---more than 10times what driver gets paid!!!! Anyhow this thread isnt about maths-its obvious to the dogs in the street that these vans are cashcows!!!!!

pippip

kenmccarthy wrote: »

How did you turn 4500 penalty points into €12000????? What do yoi think the fine is?? €3.50??? Say a driver is paid €15 per hour anf he nabs two mothets collecting their children from school maybe doing 52km in a 50 zone--- at €80 a pop that's €160---more than 10times what driver gets paid!!!! Anyhow this thread isnt about maths-its obvious to the dogs in the street that these vans are cashcows!!!!!

Yeh, cause the drivers wage is all it costs to run. :rolleyes:

Gazzmonkey

ironclaw wrote: »

that's €12,000 last week. That's not even the drivers wage.

lol

obezyana

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

They are spending money in an attempt to save lives, I wouldn't consider that wasting money, I would consider their approach wrong instead.

But the attempt seems like its benefiting the private operators more than anyone. I dont disaggree with speed checks, the silly manner in which they are located at its the issue. There is a dual carriage way in Ferrybank Waterford and just before a set of traffic lights is a space where the speed vans operate? this is just plain stupid as there is never crashes there and people will be slowing down for the lights anyway. All they are doing is catching people coming from the other end of the carriage way......and again its for revenue purposes nothing else regardless or what your research might be telling you. And by the way any business whether its at a loss or profit is always chasing more and more revenue isn't that what business is all about, this is what these operators are also doing they are in it for the money.

ratracer

Taking last weeks figures off the top of my head of 4500 points issued, assuming they were all for speed, that's €12,000 last week. That's not even the drivers wage. Or as a really bad average €6,240,000 per year. Absolute squat.


I think I want to work one of these vans!!:eek:

JC01

It's quite obvious that the vans are a license to print money, the company who runs them recently moved to some island off the UK and changed there status to unlimited so as to pay less tax and not be obliged to publish there accounts.

But besides that the thing that always annoys me is the fatalities stats the RSA/gaurds roll out. The gaurd present at that case said the vans had directy saved 25 lives, where the hell is he getting that info from? Is he saying without these vans in operation exactly 25 more people would have died on the roads? And if so how is he coming to that conclusion? Accidents are by there nature unpredictable incalculable events so how can one say the operation of Y has saved X amount of lives compared to Z?

Tragedy

I've only spotted GoSafe vans in 5 locations that I can remember;

1) Here three times, tucked in in front of the graveyard.

RSA Map says no fatalities and only 1 serious accident (single car incident)

2)
Here twice in the same general stretch of the N11(Is it still the N11 here?) catching traffic coming out of town.

RSA Map says no fatalities there (though one down by the Rugby club which was a head on accident involving a motorbike) and no serious accidents.

3)
Various places along the N11 between UCD and Leopardstown Road countless times. The only fatalities along this stretch have involved pedestrians and buses. There was another pedestrian fatality in 2013 at the Stillorgan Village junction that me and a friend out walking caught - a foreign exchange student had exited the Dublin bus and jaywalked across the N11 from the front of a bus and stepped out in front of a car. While this section fits the criteria of 'road where accidents have happened', none of the accidents are necessarily ones where speed was in any way a factor - and considering it is one of the busiest arterial access routes into Dublin, it fits with catching the max amount possible.

As a sidenote, I was almost knocked down and I saw tens of people almost knocked down crossing with a green pedestrian light at the junction with Brewery Road. Outbound traffic turning right from the N11 to Brewery had a green filter light - in light traffic, cars continuing along the N11 were constantly mistaking the green filter light as a green light to continue - cue instances of cars jamming on and not hitting people by inches, of cars going past people so close they could reach out and touch them. Wouldn't a pedestrian overbridge or a clearer light system be a better solution than fining people forever?

4)
Here where the dual carriageway is 100km/h before being classed as a motorway and becoming 120km/h.

No fatalities one serious accident.

Here twice, in front of the church and tucked in in front of a neighbouring house.

RSA map says no fatalities.


I don't really care about them from a personal point of view, I've driven 70000 miles in the last 6 years, zero points and zero tickets (including in England, Wales and the USA). I do have an issue with them from a political and social point of view - while I have zero issues with the fixed cameras with very visible warning signs that are all over the UK.

Harry Palmr

Find a long gentle decline
Find a cross-over zone where 100 becomes 80 or 80 becomes 50

This stuff is not about safety. As a local example (Waterford city) - until recently a van used to sit on the Dunmore Road at the Woodlands Leisure Centre on a down slope for a few hours every day. The location is just on the edge of town. According to the stats no one has ever died there, and I have no memory of one either.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Its actually very easy to introduce automated "speed zones" on places where its dangerous to park a van.

You enter camera one, reads reg, speed and time stamps it a mile down the road you hit camera two and the same details are read again. Simple time / distance calculation gives the average speed.

This is done in alot of other countries

corktina

One camera on a pole at the relevant spot would do it anyway...no need for two cameras

ironclaw

corktina wrote: »

One camera on a pole at the relevant spot would do it anyway...no need for two cameras

You need road markings etc with a single pole camera. Its actually more mobile and cheaper to use two.

ironclaw

kenmccarthy wrote: »

How did you turn 4500 penalty points into €12000????? What do yoi think the fine is?? €3.50??? Say a driver is paid €15 per hour anf he nabs two mothets collecting their children from school maybe doing 52km in a 50 zone--- at €80 a pop that's €160---more than 10times what driver gets paid!!!! Anyhow this thread isnt about maths-its obvious to the dogs in the street that these vans are cashcows!!!!!

4500 penalty points, divided by 3 as its 3 points per person, multiplied by 80 euro for the fine. So its 1500 people or €120,000 for last week. Again, assuming all for speed and all are paid. I may have forgotten a zero but the point stands, people are maintaining that if we take that as an average that its enough to run the company and not only do that, turn a profit for both them and the State in rebates. It would be false, in my opinion, to call them a profit / money making scheme. As they are not.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

They DO generate money for the state it's specified in the eTenders document that rebates are paid to the State and the company running the vans sure as hell aren't doing it for fun.

Generate is very different to Profit for the State. All companies make revenue but not all turn a profit. Any company on a government tender is on a golden goose as has been proven numerous times. They won't make a loss but we pay for it.

I'm not defending the vans. I'm just saying that they are not for making money. Search my username or ask here for the numerous times I've posted against these vans. I just want people to focus on the fact they are useless as opposed to the money coming out of their pockets and the apparently goldmine that they are :rolleyes:

Would people be so opposed if it was just points and no fines?

Tragedy

ironclaw wrote: »

4500 penalty points, divided by 3 as its 3 points per person, multiplied by 80 euro for the fine. So its 1500 people or €120,000 for last week. Again, assuming all for speed and all are paid. I may have forgotten a zero but the point stands, people are maintaining that if we take that as an average that its enough to run the company and not only do that, turn a profit for both them and the State in rebates. It would be false, in my opinion, to call them a profit / money making scheme. As they are not.

Um, it's 4500 penalty point notices, not 4500 penalty points. Why would anyone assume that they were publishing the total number of points?

pa990

I'm still trying to work out what "Go Bang" is doing in the title.

pawrick

ratracer wrote: »

My OH got a speeding ticket where the M6 becomes the N6 in athlone two weeks ago, doing 122 in a 100km/h zone. She should have known better, but this is an example where the van location has more to do with raising revenue than road safety.

that's a really irritating one, a lot of people get caught there and it's always the same spot the van parks around near where the speed changes from motorway to dual carriageway limits.

ofcork

The12thMan wrote: »

i have No problem with the principle of the Go safe vans But i do have a problem where some of them are.
at the end of Long straight bit of roads, we all have examples...

put them on dangerous bends, roads. for example: there are 2 between cork city and Bandon BOTH on very wide, and straight bits of road. and NONE between bandon and clonakilty, where the road is more dangerous and surface is worse but people still drive at same speed.

my 2 cents...

In fairness where the van is usually parked on the bandon side of halfway,a few people have been killed there over the years.

Nino Brown

Jawgap wrote: »

I used to think they weren't revenue generating - then we asked our local sergeant if one could occasionally be placed in the vicinity of the school I was on the parents council of.

The TY class had done an excellent project showing that nearly 80% of drivers passing the school were speeding - their conclusion (and most people's on reading their report) was that it was an accident waiting to happen.

The local sergeant contacted the local traffic corps and passed on the report. The inspector was very complimentary of the report but said the road wasn't 'busy enough' (his words) for a van to be allocated!! So much for it being a risk mitigation measure!

We asked if the van that normally parks in the area on a road leading to the motorway might be re-positioned nearer the school - again, not a chance as they said it was in a 'good spot' when asked to clarify this it was clear the spot was good because there was plenty of traffic passing on the way to the motorway.

I understand your point, but also the Inspectors. The camera's are more designed to stop people speeding out of fear of being caught by them, than to actually catch speeders. If you put it on a dangerous back road, yes you will catch the odd speeder, but only one person learns their lesson, from a rather large cost to the state. The idea is to reach as many people as possible.
The best way to do this is to have them in area's with high visibilty and high traffic. You put a camera on certain roads, and some people will even go on national internet forums ranting about them,:p giving them even more of fear factor and more publicity.
The situation you described with the schools probably more suited to speed bumps in my opinion, or even a semi regular visit by local gardai with a radar gun. Also a system like the US should be brought in, where during school hours speed limits are reduced around schools, and if you're caught speeding fines and points double.

barryoneill50

It's probably been said already, but.....
Don't f**king speed and you won't have to worry about them

robtri

not a cashcow??????

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/speedvan-firm-racks-up-profits-of-50000-per-week-29434760.html

Atomic Pineapple

robtri wrote: »

not a cashcow??????

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/speedvan-firm-racks-up-profits-of-50000-per-week-29434760.html

Go Safe is a private company, why is it a shock that they are making a profit? They aren't going to operate on the basis of doing something good, they're in it for the money. But turning a profit doesn't link to detecting speeding motorists as the cash cow.

They are contracted to log X amount of hours per week and crucially paid by the hour and not by detection. Therefore if they didn't detect anyone speeding they still get paid meaning that detecting a motorist speeding is irelevant to them making a profit.