Speed vans and news

Spook_ie

Looks like a judge has had enough of claims that speed vans aren't doing enough to aid safety but are trying to be cash cows

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/its-all-about-visibility-judge-questions-location-of-speed-van-operation-1113757.html

magicbastarder

insisting speed van locations are known negates the whole purpose of them, no?
i.e. if by definition you can get off a speeding ticket because there's no van visible, it's basically saying 'it's only illegal to speed around highly visible speed vans'.

speed vans should be camouflaged, not visible. then they'd be a deterrent.

bazz26

Utter nonsense from that out of touch judge and is a typical level of gombeenism that takes place in this country imo.

markmoto

bazz26 wrote: »

Utter nonsense from that out of touch judge and is a typical level of gombeenism that takes place in this country imo.

They operate under specific rules written on contract.
And Judge 100% correct.

The idea of Go Safe is to save lives. It's all about visibility, it's not about some sort of hiding.

And not creating another money making scheme.

magicbastarder

markmoto wrote: »

The idea of Go Safe is to save lives. It's all about visibility

those statements contradict each other, in that if by definition you cannot see one, you cannot get caught by one, not being able to see one means you know you can speed.

it's like having a police force who can only arrest you for a crime if they themselves see you committing it.

corkonion

Saving lives doesn't mean milking money, by being visible the go safe vans encourage people to be more aware of their speed, I can't fathom the physique of some people that love to see others penalised as much as possible, maybe they need some help. I agree with the judge 100%. Stick to the conditions of your licence gosafe, you were expressly told that you are not another one of the herd of irish cash cows.

markmoto

magicbastarder wrote: »

those statements contradict each other, in that if by definition you cannot see one, you cannot get caught by one, not being able to see one means you know you can speed.

it's like having a police force who can only arrest you for a crime if they themselves see you committing it.

You are looking into wrong direction. These mobile cameras set create visibility and awareness and not making money out of you. They are not enforcement agencies. We live in democratic state with Law tend to educate than rather punish for everything.

bazz26

markmoto wrote: »

They operate under specific rules written on contract.
And Judge 100% correct.

The idea of Go Safe is to save lives. It's all about visibility, it's not about some sort of hiding.

And not creating another money making scheme.

Sorry but if the defendant was compliant with the speed limit at the time of the offense then it should not have mattered whether the speed van was there, was not there, was hiding or light up in bright pink neon lights. The speeding offense was still committed. Same way the defendant would not have contributed to a "money making scheme". All of this was voluntary and totally avoidable but in typical fashion Paddy tries to use a loop hole to worm out of taking some responsibility. And some of these judges have been in that chair far too long listening to sob stories.

markmoto

bazz26 wrote: »

Sorry but if the defendant was compliant with the speed limit at the time of the offense then it should not have mattered whether the speed van was there, was not there, was hiding or light up in bright pink neon lights. The speeding offense was still committed. Same way the defendant would not have contributed to a "money making scheme". All of this was voluntary and totally avoidable but in typical fashion Paddy tries to use a loop hole to worm out of taking some responsibility. And some of these judges have been in that chair far too long listening to sob stories.

Did you read post above yours?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116937755&postcount=7

Smee_Again

Has anyone looked at the section of read in question? Anyone who doesn't see a speed van on that stretch shouldn't be driving.

magicbastarder

markmoto wrote: »

You are looking into wrong direction. These mobile cameras set create visibility and awareness and not making money out of you. They are not enforcement agencies. We live in democratic state with Law tend to educate than rather punish for everything.

why not just stick up a 'do not speed' sign and forget about enforcing the law then? if you're trying to engineer them so they don't actually catch anyone.

they do the exact opposite of what is intended. if visibility is mandatory, you are advertising their *lack* of presence everywhere else.
if i'm on the N52 and can't see a speed van, that by definition means i can speed there and not get caught. i'd be a hell of a lot more circumspect about speeding if the vans were camouflaged, if i knew not seeing one was not a guarantee they weren't there.

bazz26

corkonion wrote: »

Saving lives doesn't mean milking money, by being visible the go safe vans encourage people to be more aware of their speed, I can't fathom the physique of some people that love to see others penalised as much as possible, maybe they need some help. I agree with the judge 100%. Stick to the conditions of your licence gosafe, you were expressly told that you are not another one of the herd of irish cash cows.

Equally I cannot fathom the physique of some people who just love to stick two fingers up to authority for any lame reason, just to get one over the goberment, instead of having the balls to take some accountability for their own actions. Feeding this "cash cow" is totally voluntary here, the defendant wasn't forced to speed but now we have this judge pointing the finger of blame at the messenger.

markmoto

magicbastarder wrote: »

why not just stick up a 'do not speed' sign and forget about enforcing the law then? if you're trying to engineer them so they don't actually catch anyone.

they do the exact opposite of what is intended. if visibility is mandatory, you are advertising their *lack* of presence everywhere else.
if i'm on the N52 and can't see a speed van, that by definition means i can speed there and not get caught. i'd be a hell of a lot more circumspect about speeding if the vans were camouflaged, if i knew not seeing one was not a guarantee they weren't there.

Correct, according to contract they are not set to catch people rather showing visibility and awareness of the speed. Hence Judge made perfect decision.

If you want to talk about speeding so create another thread, I responded to OP initial post.

magicbastarder

well, it's worked as a nice cash cow for the legal profession anyway.

ChippingSodbury

magicbastarder wrote: »

those statements contradict each other, in that if by definition you cannot see one, you cannot get caught by one, not being able to see one means you know you can speed.

it's like having a police force who can only arrest you for a crime if they themselves see you committing it.

If 1,000 cars etc pass a speed van that cannot be seen and 30 are caught speeding, 30 people will learn a lesson (hopefully). Whereas, if the van is very visible, and 900 of the 1,000 notice it, 900 people will be made more aware of a possible detection and will slow down if necessary for a few days/ weeks/ months (hopefully)

magicbastarder

the 'lesson' they will learn is not to speed where a van is visible.
there's no 'lesson' learned in slowing down to pass a speed van. it's like claiming i've learned a lesson not to steal when i pay for my bar of chocolate with a garda standing behind me waiting to pay for a breakfast roll.

Spook_ie

The purpose of GoSafe vans wasn't ever meant primarily as enforcement, it was to act as a deterrent, but to be a deterrent you need to actually see them.

That is one of the reasons the Gardai publish the sections of road that might or might not have a GoSafe van present, but if you don't see the GoSafe vans then they are not a deterrent.

ChippingSodbury

magicbastarder wrote: »

the 'lesson' they will learn is not to speed where a van is visible.
there's no 'lesson' learned in slowing down to pass a speed van. it's like claiming i've learned a lesson not to steal when i pay for my bar of chocolate with a garda standing behind me waiting to pay for a breakfast roll.

I think you'll find that's not exactly how psychology works!

The intention of the programme, as the judge rightly pointed out, is as a deterrent. If vans are hidden, the visibility part is missed and so, part of the deterrent effect is missed.

However, if this guy was caught speeding, I don't think it would be correct to let him off just because the van couldn't be seen. On the other hand, if judges don't make a stand, it'd be hard to see how the stated objectives (visibility as part of the deterrent) would be followed: GoSafe just wouldn't bother.

Andrewf20

ChippingSodbury wrote: »

I think you'll find that's not exactly how psychology works!

The intention of the programme, as the judge rightly pointed out, is as a deterrent. If vans are hidden, the visibility part is missed and so, part of the deterrent effect is missed.

However, if this guy was caught speeding, I don't think it would be correct to let him off just because the van couldn't be seen. On the other hand, if judges don't make a stand, it'd be hard to see how the stated objectives (visibility as part of the deterrent) would be followed: GoSafe just wouldn't bother.

I think the visible deterrent is the letter in the post.

I reckon people will likely stick to the limits more if they know they could be caught from a hidden camera. Its instills proactive instead of reactive driving behaviour.

Even the guns the guards carry can catch you up to a km away, long before you spot them.

frozenfrozen

if drivers are constantly hawk eyeing for a speed van up ahead they have a **** load more concentration on the road then someone with the radar cruise set to the car in front while they try to remember if they've had 6 or 8 solpadine today

if they're just hidden then people will keep speeding but they won't even be looking out. At least if you can spot them in time to slow down then you're teaching people to pay attention while driving


hidden ones to catch people doing 180km/h and mad stuff, ok maybe. but ffs how does it help anyone if they're hidden and you get a letter 2 weeks later to say you were doing 108 in a 100 zone.

Hellrazer

The judge should be looking at the locations of these vans. The contract is supposed to save lives but they are positioned in a way to catch as many people as possible.

Remember Go safe are a private company that have wages and other costs to pay.


Where I live theres been a go safe van parked outside a school some mornings.






Thats great you think but its always a Sunday morning starting at 7.30am...not Monday to Friday during school hours when theres idiots driving like lunatics with kids are trying to cross the road.

Ive asked why its there on a Sunday morning @7.30 am and still haven't gotten a response from either go safe or the Garda.

Smee_Again

Hellrazer wrote: »

The judge should be looking at the locations of these vans. The contract is supposed to save lives but they are positioned in a way to catch as many people as possible.

Remember Go safe are a private company that have wages and other costs to pay.

Go safe are paid regardless of the number of fines issued or not issued.

Their SLA is on hours worked not fines issued or offences detected.

kirving

Smee_Again wrote: »

Go safe are paid regardless of the number of fines issued or not issued.

Their SLA is on hours worked not fines issued or offences detected.

How exactly does that relate to their positioning and timing? If the numbers being caught declined, then questions would naturally be asked.

In a 60km stretch of country road I often drive, I most often see GoSafe vans at the end of the few straights where overtaking is safe, never anywhere near the bunches of flowers on the side of the road. They're sometimes in towns too, but never when it's most busy, usually late at night or early morning.

Smee_Again

kirving wrote: »

How exactly does that relate to their positioning and timing? If the numbers being caught declined, then questions would naturally be asked.

In a 60km stretch of country road I often drive, I most often see GoSafe vans at the end of the few straights where overtaking is safe, never anywhere near the bunches of flowers on the side of the road. They're sometimes in towns too, but never when it's most busy, usually late at night or early morning.

Hellrazer was talking about Go-Safe’s wages and other costs, but that’s a complete red herring.

Go Safe’s contract is to provide a set amount of hour of speed detection, they get paid regardless of number of detections.

The tender ITT when I last read it had no mention of any targets for detections so no questions would be asked of the hours are worked but detections fell.

odyssey06

Weren't they supposed to be placed in accident blackspots?

Where I see them around Dublin accidents are more likely due to blind spots \ changing lanes etc

The only 'accident' I am aware of near the Yacht pub involved the assassination of a drug dealer...