Speed vans on dark dual carriageway

Tilikum17

Speed van on my way do work most mornings - a 50km dual carriageway.
He’s there’s before 7 in the morning most mornings.

I love how facts and stats from the internet are ignored as while anacdotal personal opinion is entered as fact.

the stats are there, download them and read them.

breezy1985

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I've already suggested it (hidden or average speed cameras), but you've gone to the extreme there.

In my experience, the vans don't really slow traffic, but do tend to invoke bad reactions. People drive as normal and slam on the brakes on a dual carriageway when they see a camera. That's human behaviour above all else, it's not stupidity per se.

There is also no need for an operator to be in the van, it's a complete waste of money (nevermind the terrible working conditions).

Why are you slamming on the break unless you are speeding?

Wildly Boaring

Actually thought this thread was a wind up and would get no traction.

Yes there are speed vans at night too.

Don't speed.
Don't tailgate.

You'll be golden.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Why can't we just have average cameras instead?

It'll eventually lead to almost 100% compliance.

There'll be no fish in the barrel argument because you'll know they'll be there always.

The state won't be losing money to expensive gatso contractors (the vans cost more than they bring in).

breezy1985

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Why can't we just have average cameras instead?

It'll eventually lead to almost 100% compliance.

There'll be no fish in the barrel argument because you'll know they'll be there always.

The state won't be losing money to expensive gatso contractors (the vans cost more than they bring in).

Could do with a few to catch "magic parking light" users blocking up roads too

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

breezy1985 wrote: »

Could do with a few to catch "magic parking light" users blocking up roads too

? What?

You mean people driving with just parking lights or DRL?

Does my nut in.

Uncle Pierre

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I love how facts and stats from the internet are ignored as while anacdotal personal opinion is entered as fact.

the stats are there, download them and read them.

If that's a retort to the examples I've given - well, go ahead then.

See if you can download and read stats about any history or series of speed-related crashes at the two locations near Gorey that I've highlighted, for instance. The places where speed cameras are set up to catch people who speed up to 70 km/h just a little too soon, after already passing through 90% or more of a 60 zone.

Now look at stats or even press reports for crashes at Kyle Cross and Ballycarney crossroads - the places where you rarely if ever see a speed camera at all, but where they should be stationed far more often.

See how you get on, and come back to us then.

Uncle Pierre

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

If that's a retort to the examples I've given - well, go ahead then.

See if you can download and read stats about any history or series of speed-related crashes at the two locations near Gorey that I've highlighted, for instance. The places where speed cameras are set up to catch people who speed up to 70 km/h just a little too soon, after already passing through 90% or more of a 60 zone.

Now look at stats or even press reports for crashes at Kyle Cross and Ballycarney crossroads - the places where you rarely if ever see a speed camera at all, but where they should be stationed far more often.

See how you get on, and come back to us then.

theres hundreds, if not thousands of crashes not reported in the papers. Journalists dont leave the office anymore. They barely go to the courts even.

The stats are there, the map of the areas they operate are there and theres safety issues at play. Its all there, DONT SPEED simples

Heres the link to the wexford stats, Kyles cross is on the N11, numerous collisions and its a straight road. No reason for speeding and no reason for not seeing the van which is there in rotation as any other area. Just because YOU dont see it doesnt mean its not there. I have never seen a great white shark

https://www.garda.ie/en/roads-policing/safety-cameras/wexford-feb-2020.pdf

Uncle Pierre

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

theres hundreds, if not thousands of crashes not reported in the papers. Journalists dont leave the office anymore. They barely go to the courts even.

The stats are there, the map of the areas they operate are there and theres safety issues at play. Its all there, DONT SPEED simples

Heres the link to the wexford stats, Kyles cross is on the N11, numerous collisions and its a straight road. No reason for speeding and no reason for not seeing the van which is there in rotation as any other area. Just because YOU dont see it doesnt mean its not there. I have never seen a great white shark

https://www.garda.ie/en/roads-policing/safety-cameras/wexford-feb-2020.pdf

First off, I agree with your message of "DON'T SPEED - simples". Nowhere here or anywhere else have I condoned excessive speed, and I don't speed myself.

It's been about eight years since I picked up a fine and points myself, and that was for doing 70 km/h in the 60 zone over Ferrycarrig Bridge (also near Wexford) late at night, with no other traffic around. Only other time I ever got points was a few years before that, for a doing around 60 passing by Wexford Racecourse, also at night with little or no other traffic around, when I mistakenly thought I'd already exited the 50 zone there and was in the 60 instead.

All I'm saying here is that when you see how often a van is located at some "easy pickings" locations (like those 60 km/h spots near Gorey), compared to how rarely at actual danger zones (like Kyle Cross), it's easy to see how some could be sceptical at the claim that they're set up to tackle actual dangerous speeding, and believe that they're often just set up instead for maximising revenue.

But let's continue to take Kyle Cross as an example. As you rightly point out, it's on the N11, and it's even on a stretch of road that's marked as a Safety Camera Zone on the map at https://www.garda.ie/gosafe.html

However, that stretch of road that's marked as a Safety Camera Zone is about three to four miles long. It's a stretch I've driven literally thousands of times myself, as I've commuted to Wexford town for more than 20 years, and have regularly headed there for shopping, matches, nights out, etc., as well.

There's regularly a speed van parked on the hard shoulder about a mile on the Wexford side of the cross, where it can catch vehicles coming too fast over the brow of a small hill as they head out of town. There's sometimes a van about a mile on the other side of the cross too. But I honestly don't think I've ever seen a van parked in a place where its camera could be trained on the junction itself. And I honestly don't believe that I could always have missed it, considering how often I see them in the other two places nearby.

Anyway, I'm not the enemy here, so if you want to go on a "just don't speed" crusade, you'll have to pick on somebody else. I'd actually like to see more speed cameras in the real danger zones, instead of the "easy pickings" places.

By the way, for some strange reason, the two locations I've been talking about near Gorey aren't marked on the map at https://www.garda.ie/gosafe.html, even though they're the places I see speed vans most often of all. So no stats for crashes there are readily available. But whatever the numbers are, I'm guessing they're negligible compared to the two fatal and nine overall at Kyle Cross, as stated in the stats that you linked to yourself.

So when all is said and done, would you not actually agree with me here - that it would be better to have cameras more regularly at a 100 km/h stretch in a genuinely hazardous location like Kyle Cross, than in a couple of relatively safe "60, just before it becomes 80" places on a road out of Gorey?

It would be unwise to have a speed check on a junction. Little point in sending the message of safety is you are causing crashes.

One mile either side is doing the job though. To use my shark again, if there an attack one mile to either side of the beach where I swim, Im not swimming there anymore

breezy1985

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It would be unwise to have a speed check on a junction. Little point in sending the message of safety is you are causing crashes.

One mile either side is doing the job though. To use my shark again, if there an attack one mile to either side of the beach where I swim, Im not swimming there anymore

Why are these vans causing crashes? Sounds like most drivers on irish roads should have their licenses revoked if this thread is anything to go by

Damien360

breezy1985 wrote: »

Why are these vans causing crashes? Sounds like most drivers on irish roads should have their licenses revoked if this thread is anything to go by

It just takes one idiot to cause a crash. I have passed a speed van in an 80 zone (not far from tullamore at usual spot) doing no more than 60 and the car in front of me dropped anchor and came down to 30 passing the van. He did that all within 30m of the van. I didn’t hit him but he caused chaos behind me for a long way back. One idiot !

Uncle Pierre

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It would be unwise to have a speed check on a junction. Little point in sending the message of safety is you are causing crashes.

One mile either side is doing the job though. To use my shark again, if there an attack one mile to either side of the beach where I swim, Im not swimming there anymore

Hmmmm. "Unwise" to have a speed check at a known and widely-recognised danger spot, despite how the stated reason for choosing locations for speed checks is that they're places with a history of speed-related collisions?

You're now arguing against the whole reason for speed checks in the first place, while I'm consistent in my call for greater enforcement where it's needed most. How does that sit with you?

And to stay with your shark analogy...how about if you knew that the shark is ONLY ever one mile either side from that swimming spot, but never at that spot itself? Surely any logic would suggest that spot is therefore the safest place to swim?

Finally, I notice that you've avoided directly answering the question that I ended my last post with. So the question remains.

Darc19

I think that there should be lane detection vans on all 3 lane motorways and any vehicle hogging the middle lane when lane one is obviously clear are fined €200

It would have a fund of millions within a couple of weeks

breezy1985

Damien360 wrote: »

It just takes one idiot to cause a crash. I have passed a speed van in an 80 zone (not far from tullamore at usual spot) doing no more than 60 and the car in front of me dropped anchor and came down to 30 passing the van. He did that all within 30m of the van. I didn’t hit him but he caused chaos behind me for a long way back. One idiot !

The speed camera didn't cause the crash. An idiot caused the crash it's the same as the falsehood that is the "dangerous road"

Uncle Pierre

Darc19 wrote: »

I think that there should be lane detection vans on all 3 lane motorways and any vehicle hogging the middle lane when lane one is obviously clear are fined €200

It would have a fund of millions within a couple of weeks

Well, there's some merit in your suggestion so long as it's understood that somebody is not "hogging" the lane if they're proceeding at the limit or just over it (i.e. within 5 to 10 km/h of it), even if lane one is empty.

The only ones who'd consider somebody else to be "hogging" the road if they're doing 105 km/h in the middle lane of a 100 zone, or 125 km/h in the middle lane of a 120 zone, are those who want to be able to bomb along well in excess of the speed limit. And they're the ones that the speed cameras are out to get in the first place.

Darc19

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Well, there's some merit in your suggestion so long as it's understood that somebody is not "hogging" the lane if they're proceeding at the limit or just over it (i.e. within 5 to 10 km/h of it), even if lane one is empty.

The only ones who'd consider somebody else to be "hogging" the road if they're doing 105 km/h in the middle lane of a 100 zone, or 125 km/h in the middle lane of a 120 zone, are those who want to be able to bomb along well in excess of the speed limit. And they're the ones that the speed cameras are out to get in the first place.

Try driving the M7, a certain cohort drive slower than artics in the middle lane. - less than 85kmh.


Usually Dacia Duster drivers

Uncle Pierre

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Hmmmm. "Unwise" to have a speed check at a known and widely-recognised danger spot, despite how the stated reason for choosing locations for speed checks is that they're places with a history of speed-related collisions?

You're now arguing against the whole reason for speed checks in the first place, while I'm consistent in my call for greater enforcement where it's needed most. How does that sit with you?

And to stay with your shark analogy...how about if you knew that the shark is ONLY ever one mile either side from that swimming spot, but never at that spot itself? Surely any logic would suggest that spot is therefore the safest place to swim?

Finally, I notice that you've avoided directly answering the question that I ended my last post with. So the question remains.

Your stand might be consistent but that's mostly because it's not based on informed knowledge, it's based on opinion.

Speed check one mile either side of a junction will reduce speeding at that junction. It takes time to increase speed and people are Jess likely to speed in the vicinity of checks.

And yes, of course you don't put a speed van on a junction or a bend, it's dangerous. That shouldn't need to be explained to you, it should be obvious. To don't make things safer by adding an additional danger.

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

The speed camera didn't cause the crash. An idiot caused the crash it's the same as the falsehood that is the "dangerous road"

Placing a van on a bend or a junction is not safe for the controller of the van or other road users. It's a simple safety assessment to do. You don't do checkpoints in the rain for the same reason unless vital. Yes additional steps by driver's would prevent a crash but you can't simple rely on that.

breezy1985

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Placing a van on a bend or a junction is not safe for the controller of the van or other road users. It's a simple safety assessment to do. You don't do checkpoints in the rain for the same reason unless vital. Yes additional steps by driver's would prevent a crash but you can't simple rely on that.

As long as the van is off the road I don't see the problem. And there is no problem with wet checkpoints as long as there is room for people to stop which is different to the speed vans that you don't need to do anything for unless you are breaking the law

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

As long as the van is off the road I don't see the problem. And there is no problem with wet checkpoints as long as there is room for people to stop which is different to the speed vans that you don't need to do anything for unless you are breaking the law

Well luckily the health and safety authority and Garda policy disagrees with you.

Uncle Pierre

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Your stand might be consistent but that's mostly because it's not based on informed knowledge, it's based on opinion.

Well, at least it's consistent.

And while I may indeed have an opinion on where I think speed cameras might be best deployed, it's not "an opinion" to say where they're usually deployed around here. It's a fact based on informed knowledge gained from what I've seen myself over the course of about 30 years of driving, and 20 years commuting along that road. And unless you've driven the road as often as I have, I'm far better placed than you are to comment on that.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Speed check one mile either side of a junction will reduce speeding at that junction. It takes time to increase speed and people are Jess likely to speed in the vicinity of checks.

No it won't. Do you drive on open roads much yourself, to observe other driver behaviour? It's usually the case that once you pass a speed van, you can be almost 100% sure that you won't see another one for a significant distance, and definitely not within a mile. So in fact, it's when just after passing a speed van that many people pay least attention of all to the speed that they're actually doing. That's where average speed cameras would help, but that's a whole other issue.

And in any case, it doesn't take a mile to get back up to speed after passing a van!

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

And yes, of course you don't put a speed van on a junction or a bend, it's dangerous. That shouldn't need to be explained to you, it should be obvious. To don't make things safer by adding an additional danger.

I'm afraid you do have to explain it to me, particularly since the stated rationale for choosing speed camera locations is so checks can be operated in places with a history of speed-related collisions.

Kyle Cross is probably the most notorious junction in Co. Wexford, because of how it's a crossroads. There are two T-junctions that are generally considered bad too - one on the Wexford to New Ross road, and one on the Wexford to Rosslare road. Are you seriously saying there should never be speed checks there to encourage people to slow down a bit, no matter how many serious and fatal crashes there are, simply because they're junctions?

Bizarre.

Uncle Pierre

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Well, at least it's consistent.

And while I may indeed have an opinion on where I think speed cameras might be best deployed, it's not "an opinion" to say where they're usually deployed around here. It's a fact based on informed knowledge gained from what I've seen myself over the course of about 30 years of driving, and 20 years commuting along that road. And unless you've driven the road as often as I have, I'm far better placed than you are to comment on that.



No it won't. Do you drive on open roads much yourself, to observe other driver behaviour? It's usually the case that once you pass a speed van, you can be almost 100% sure that you won't see another one for a significant distance, and definitely not within a mile. So in fact, it's when just after passing a speed van that many people pay least attention of all to the speed that they're actually doing. That's where average speed cameras would help, but that's a whole other issue.

And in any case, it doesn't take a mile to get back up to speed after passing a van!



I'm afraid you do have to explain it to me, particularly since the stated rationale for choosing speed camera locations is so checks can be operated in places with a history of speed-related collisions.

Kyle Cross is probably the most notorious junction in Co. Wexford, because of how it's a crossroads. There are two T-junctions that are generally considered bad too - one on the Wexford to New Ross road, and one on the Wexford to Rosslare road. Are you seriously saying there should never be speed checks there to encourage people to slow down a bit, no matter how many serious and fatal crashes there are, simply because they're junctions?

Bizarre.

Did you encounter many speed vans 30 years ago?

I drive and cycle my area all the time, I actually work here too and I still cant state how many speed checks have been performed in any given time. Theres 24 hours in a day, I assume you sleep and have better things to do daily that drive around van watching. If you spend even 1 hour a day in that area I would be surprised.

It takes time to increase speed, it takes time to decrease speed. maybe you floor it, most dont. The rational of ensuring speeding never, would require absolute saturation and that wont happen.

This is why safety of staff and picking locations matters: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/drunk-driver-wont-face-trial-over-death-of-fireman-garda-26592953.html

Uncle Pierre

That news story you link to is undoubtedly a tragedy, but I'm seriously racking my brains about what you might think is the relevance of it in this particular context. All I can come up is that you're contending that speed van shouldn't actually be set up at recognised collision blackspots, in case somebody crashes into the speed van itself?

But again - does that not go right against the grain of where speed checks are supposed to be set up in the first place?

Meanwhile, you continue to deflect and dodge and twist and turn on other points raised. Example - I asked do you drive much on open roads yourself, and you reply merely with "I drive and cycle my area", without saying where that area is. If you're a city dweller and mainly just drive and cycle in the city, then the answer to my question would be a simple "no". Why not just say that?

Uncle Pierre

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

That news story you link to is undoubtedly a tragedy, but I'm seriously racking my brains about what you might think is the relevance of it in this particular context. All I can come up is that you're contending that speed van shouldn't actually be set up at recognised collision blackspots, in case somebody crashes into the speed van itself?

But again - does that not go right against the grain of where speed checks are supposed to be set up in the first place?

Meanwhile, you continue to deflect and dodge and twist and turn on other points raised. Example - I asked do you drive much on open roads yourself, and you reply merely with "I drive and cycle my area", without saying where that area is. If you're a city dweller and mainly just drive and cycle in the city, then the answer to my question would be a simple "no". Why not just say that?

I drive on open roads, Im not a hermit but naturally as a city dweller, thats the majority of my travel.

The link I sent was very simple, its what happens when you perform traffic on a bend / junction and in bad weather. People that are driving recklessly end up killing people. I dunno about you but I value my life and dont wish to throw it away by being reckless. If you put a van on a corner, people will brake / slam on while going around a bend and will lose control. If its happenine without vans, how will a van improve the safety? How do we know that speed is the cause of the accidents on those bends / junctions in the first place?

As I have said, theres no point in preaching safety and then ignoring your own safety or taking an action that actually makes a situation unsafe.

bigmac3

Vincenzo Faithful Harpoon wrote: »

Those luminous stickers are not reflective.

On a similar note, I passed a dark green mini bus type vehicle last night parked up on the N24. Camera on a tripod at the back, and PC Plod sitting in the passenger seat in the front. Never saw such a trap before.

Military police

kirving

breezy1985 wrote: »

Why are you slamming on the break unless you are speeding?

It's an instinctive reaction from many drivers, and has everything to do with human behaviour and little to do with the actual speed of the vehicle.

Say you're walking past a guy on the street and he raises his fist ready to punch. Do you instinctively react to protect yourself, or do you just walk on by thinking "well I haven't done anything to this man, he has no reason to hit me, so there's no point in reacting".

In much the same way, many people don't waste time in second guessing whether it's a 50 or 60km/h zone, or taking a second look at the tiny km/h markings on their UK imported car.

They hit the brakes to protect themselves.

Padre_Pio

Kevin Irving wrote: »

They hit the brakes to protect themselves.

It's stupid, so so stupid. Even people going under the speed limit brake for a speed van.

At the end of the day though, it's your responsibility to keep your distance.

Popoutman

redcup342 wrote: »

Whenever I visit Ireland I wonder how the hell you miss those things, big white van with luminous stickers all over it saying SLOW DOWN

Those stickers on the current camera vans are very non-retroreflective, very non-fluorescent, and actually impinge on the visibility at a distance of the vans. We'd be better off if they either put correct truck-type retroreflective tape on the vans, or removing the dark panels altogether. Maybe you were looking at a different set of vans - maybe our actual Garda vans?

Try taking a pic of the private vans at night with a good flash - see that the dark panels go black and not actually reflective. The most reflective thing on them is the numberplate.

I've always been genuinely surprised at how low-visibility these private camera vans are compared to similar vehicles as used by the State Services with real safety markings. Then again, it wouldn't suit the anti-speed brigade if everyone could in fact see a van parked a kilometre or two up the road and be travelling at an appropriate speed at a point.

I have contended since the inception of privately-operated mobile cameras that only highly visible/retro-reflective camera vans, advertised in advance both in time and location, locatable live on a freely accessible database, and only parked at appropriate locations, would provide the correct incentives to reduce speed at a location. Any other camera method not satisfying all of the above does not have speed reduction as the core priority. The current camera vans definitely do not satisfy these conditions, and demonstrably do not have speed reduction as their core reason of being - one can only assume it's to increase the ticketing and increase the revenue generation as a result, as speed reduction is not their purpose in reality.