Sneaky speedcheck on M1 today

Andrew Duffy

While you could contest a speeding fine issued for speeding through roadworks, you would probably also be charged (correctly) with dangerous driving, and this carries a much higher penalty. Pay the speeding fine and take the points.

Ayashii

I don't think most motorists would have a problem with universal random speed checks but presented in a way that acts as a deterrant to speeding. In other words signs indicating that speed checks are in operation, high visibility vans/cameras and a policy of effective education rather than punishment. Even without that, I'm sure most motorists with the present system in place would also agree that speeding in inappropriate areas is not acceptable.

Driving along a new motorway at approved speeds of up to 120kmph, approaching a curve in the road to be presented with roadsigns on the grass margins held down by sandbags without any specific prior warning well in advance that there will be a neccessary reduction change of speed (and what that reduction will be), and then having a covert police speed check just past the speed drop is just not reasonable.

Anyway, I'll let ye know how many points I get.... :rolleyes:

Einstein

Gerry wrote:

No, what you do is boot it a bit, but slam the brake on for a fraction of a second with your left foot. The car will pitch a fair bit, but not really slow down, gets rid of the tailgaters every time

Nothing like a promoter of safe driving.

BrianD

I concurr that we do need better distribution of these speed checks accross the road network whether they be covet or overt. Every driver knows that speed checks take place so signage is not really necessary (but I have no issue with roadside cameras being signed as often the sign will produce the desired reduction in speed).

In regards to the specific case referred to, it appears to me that the signs are large and obvious (where else would they be but on the grass margins??) and I also note that the traffic cones extend beyond the speed signs. I don't know if there was advance signage of impending road works but that would be your cue to be alert for a possible change in speed limit. You should have been travelling at 80kph by the time you reached the first signs so reducing to 50kph should be achievable.


The notion of having to publish temp speed limits for road works is ridiculous and a classic example of bureaucracy gone wrong. That's not to say that there should be not be public information available on the limit through council web sites, AA roadwatch or newspapers.

jlang

I have to say that I am often "slightly guilty" of ignoring temporary speed limit signs (particularly advance ones). I do notice them and see them more as an indication that there may be activity on the road, narrower lanes, etc. Yes I slow down, but not necessarily to exactly 20/30/50km or whatever the new limit is. The effects on my driving are more subtle than just blind speed reduction, more related to preparedness and I suppose a more careful eye out for vans by the side of the road! Of course, I still wouldn't beep, flash or tailgate someone else who did slow to the 30km/whatever, as their interpretation is just more literal than mine and ultimately more defensible. I see it as analogous to not going 5km/h in car parks when that's the posted limit, but still keeping a very close eye out for reversing cars, trollies, lose babies, etc.

Macy

I suppose it depends on whether you think the gard's main role is in prevention or prosecution.

Personally I'd far rather a police presence prevented my car being nicked in the first place, rather than hearing that they've caught the scumbag who stole it later on.

My opinion of speeding is the same - better a highly visible presence slowing people down, rather than a snide GATSO van catching the oblivious....

Our man in Havana

So you rather the Gardai trample your civil and consitutional rights, if the limits were invalid. So you are willing to accept all laws even if morally wrong?
So if there was a new law allowing the Gardai to on the first friday of each month enter your house and help themselves to your stuff, you would just roll over and accept it? I bet not , but there is no real difference here.

You are just a typicial Irish who allow the govt to ream you sideways and yee just take it. God help us all.

BrianD3

BrianD wrote:

The notion of having to publish temp speed limits for road works is ridiculous and a classic example of bureaucracy gone wrong. .

Disagree. There should be a defined and transparent process for setting temp speed limits and publishing them in the papers is a good start. This will both encourage competence on the part of authorities and will also encourage compliance on the part of motorists (the logic being that if motorist think the limits have been set competently and are legally binding, then they're more likely to respect and obey them)

At the moment the situation is a joke. Contractors install non standard speed limit signs. Signs are placed poorly. Signs fall over or are blown away. Big flashing displays display limits which conflict with other speed limit signs (which speed limit do you believe) Temp speed limit signs are left up long after the roadworks have finished. Mph signs are used even though all other speed limit signs have changed to metric. I have seen all of the above problems and others at roadworks.

BrianD

Bond-007 wrote:

So you rather the Gardai trample your civil and consitutional rights, if the limits were invalid. So you are willing to accept all laws even if morally wrong?
So if there was a new law allowing the Gardai to on the first friday of each month enter your house and help themselves to your stuff, you would just roll over and accept it? I bet not , but there is no real difference here.

You are just a typicial Irish who allow the govt to ream you sideways and yee just take it. God help us all.

What constitutional and civil rights???? Are you pulling my leg? It's a speed limit on a set of roadworks. Your second example has no relevance whatsoever to this arguement. The only moral issue at stake is your willingness to disregard a speed limit and put others at risk

It is morally repugnent of you suggest that it is OK to challenge the validity of a speed trap in a set of roadworks because some irrelevant piece of paper does or does not exist. It seems that your attidude is that you can disregard the speed limit and then allow the decision of whether you should be punished be decided at a later date on the existence of documents.

You are typically Irish! Refuse to obey something that is put in the good of the motoring community and then heading off on some legalistic/constitutional mumbo jumbo because you will not accept the punishment for your own actions. This has nothing to do with the government - you are simply being asked to slow down for the safety of others on the road and those working on it. Accept some personal responsibilty for once in your life.

Alun

BrianD3 wrote:

At the moment the situation is a joke. Contractors install non standard speed limit signs. Signs are placed poorly. Signs fall over or are blown away. Big flashing displays display limits which conflict with other speed limit signs (which speed limit do you believe) Temp speed limit signs are left up long after the roadworks have finished. Mph signs are used even though all other speed limit signs have changed to metric. I have seen all of the above problems and others at roadworks.

Agreed 100%. Add to that the total failure to comprehend the difference between signs indicating lanes narrowing and lanes totally disappearing, even if they do understand getting right and left mixed up, signs warning of ramps ahead placed on the ramp itself, ....

There's a typical example on the M11 at the moment. A big dot matrix display that's meant to flash chevrons pointing in one direction to indicate a lane closure. No problem with that, but at times when it's not applicable, what do they do? Switch it off? Oh no, they leave it flashing some weird kind of flashing diamond pattern, which is meant to indicate what exactly?

Our man in Havana

.

edmund_f

Bond-007 wrote:

i do not condone barrelling thru at 120 km/h, they should go thru at a reasonable safe speed.

i think he already stated his case pretty well, i think it is very irish to take the extreme view just prove yourself right, or more importantly someone else wrong. The point here is that the speed camera at this position is extreme, and while technically correct and legal is not fair.

anyone doing 120+ through here will be just as likely to be doing 140+ on the motorway, so why not catch them there. As far as i can see, there is a pretty major hazard and all a gatso van will be doing will be adding another dangrous element to it.

whippet

Ì drive the M1 every day, and I can't understand anyone arguing with the signage of the road works. There is plenty of notice, big speed signs (does it matter if they are held down with sandbags or cement as long as they are there), flashing lights sign over head warning 'reduce speed', loads of cones ... .the 80kph and 60kph signs are visable from a great distance back.

Anyone who justifies going faster than 80kph with in inches of where men are working on the road must have rocks in their head.

Looking for loop holes, blaming revenue hungry cops are excuses used by those caught. Funnily enough I am more or less 100% compliant with speed limits and I have no gripe with the enforcement of the limits (i would like to see more).

It seems that people who have been caught are the ones who moan about the system. It's the irish condition of 'it wasn't my fault'; 'its not fair' etc ..

ambro25

edmund_f wrote:

The point here is that the speed camera at this position is extreme, and while technically correct and legal is not fair.

Once and for all, the legal system (and it's application/enforcement) and 'fairness' are two totally distinct concepts.

Following the immortal words of Yoda the Sage "Do or do not, there is no try", breach the statute (by exceeding the legally-enforceable speed limit) or do not breach, there is no 'fair'.

And I drive daily, carefully and not always within the speed limits. But then again, if I get caught, my bad... You can't have you cake and eat it, simple enough.

Paul (MN)

"Driving along a new motorway at approved speeds of up to 120kmph, approaching a curve in the road to be presented with roadsigns on the grass margins held down by sandbags without any specific prior warning well in advance that there will be a neccessary reduction change of speed (and what that reduction will be), and then having a covert police speed check just past the speed drop is just not reasonable."


baloney! I use that road every morning and if what you write is how you really feel that you shouldn't be on the road!

edmund_f

exactly.. there is the law and the enforcement of the law.. one is the courts and the other is based on the ability of the cops to be fair.
the speed trap on the M1 was because some cop made a consious decion to put one there. He got up, went to work, looked at all the possible position he could put a speed trap, and decided that the gatso parked at roadworks at a temporary speed limit would be a good, fair, way to enforce the laws as handed down to him by the goverment and the courts.

i am personally complaining here about the manner in which our road traffic laws are being enforced (or more accuratly our road traffic law)

ambro25

Paul (MN) wrote:

baloney! I use that road every morning and if what you write is how you really feel that you shouldn't be on the road!

Why? Because I choose to (at times) not respect speed limits but propose not to complain if I get caught in the act?

edmund_f wrote:

exactly.. there is the law and the enforcement of the law.. one is the courts and the other is based on the ability of the cops to be fair.

No, sorry Edmund. Enforcement is by Courts who apply the law in respect of a finding of facts by cops (which finding may be fair/unfair/both given any set of beliefs, but is still factual).

edmund_f wrote:

the speed trap on the M1 was because some cop made a consious decion to put one there. He got up, went to work, looked at all the possible position he could put a speed trap, and decided that the gatso parked at roadworks at a temporary speed limit would be a good, fair, way to enforce the laws as handed down to him by the goverment and the courts.

Or was ordered by his Super' to do it, because the Super' himself had got complaints from the working party on the ground that it was getting hairy working there...

Macy

edmund_f wrote:

i am personally complaining here about the manner in which our road traffic laws are being enforced (or more accuratly our road traffic law)

Which would also be my long standing complain (long before I got penalty points).

A marked patrol car parked there would've slowed people down far more than a GATSO van. If people had come by taking the píss, then pull them for it. I'll repeat, the policing of the roads in this country is not about preventing speeding or accidents/crashes and all about catching people.

Paul (MN)

ambro25, I wasn't directing my comment at you. I was quoted something from way back.

whippet

the policing of the roads in this country is not about preventing speeding or accidents/crashes and all about catching people.

if you didn't catch the law breakers there would be no incentive for others to respect the law. You can't have it both ways.

ambro25

Paul (MN) wrote:

ambro25, I wasn't directing my comment at you. I was quoted something from way back.

OK

delanest

formatman wrote:

Speed cop with nothing better to do , just inside the drop from 100 to 60 etc

Thats his/her job !

edmund_f

ambro25 wrote:

No, sorry Edmund. Enforcement is by Courts who apply the law in respect of a finding of facts by cops (which finding may be fair/unfair/both given any set of beliefs, but is still factual).

Or was ordered by his Super' to do it, because the Super' himself had got complaints from the working party on the ground that it was getting hairy working there...

i was noting the fact that the decision on the positioning of the speed traps is totally at the discression of the cop, with the final responsibility of this going to the chief super. I have personally checked this. Not the courts, the courts have the final say on the facts, speeding yes/no but nothing regarding that none of the detections happen in (somewhat) low risk areas/times.

As far as i remember the evidence is 'prima facie' (spelling?) that all the evidence given by cops is given as true and correct, unless proven otherwise. So my interpretation of the above is we have a situation where a cop is given a set amount of detections to clock up, and given a gatso. then if he does detect someone you have to take him to court and prove your innocence against his evidence. so given above it leads to the situation that we have on our roads today. cops hiding behind statistics and people keep getting killed on our roads?

ambro25

edmund_f wrote:

i was noting the fact that (...) cops hiding behind statistics and people keep getting killed on our roads?

Hmm...not sure if there's a question in there, but...

Essentially, the OP disagrees with the finding of fact that he was speeding.

He disagrees all the more because of the location of the GATSO (in the middle of roadworks that have motivated the local & temporary speed restriction).

And alleges that the checking of speed was there because it was (mostly) motivated by getting 'good' infraction numbers, from which to possibly boost revenue from corresponding fines (or any other such budgetray/statistical consideration).

What I am replying is -again essentially- that:

Cops will detect speed limit infractions (make a finding of fact):
wherever: i.e. wherever a speed limit is in force, temporarily or permanently, that might be breached - even if always in the same spots in which people get "done" (in fact this strikes me as pretty effective policing: if people always breach the speed limit at the same 'obvious' spots, you'd think drivers would learn, after a fashion...)

EDIT: compounded by the fact that, if policing was done for revenue AND drivers learned after a fashion, those obvious spots would rapidly become poor "cash cows", so to speak, and ole Gardai would have to find their business elsewhere. Strikes me as common sense...

whenever: i.e. random via GATSO or hairdryer, or permanent/fixed

And Courts will enforce the law with applying it to the finding of fact: i.e. was speeding against local limit or was not, black/white - unless mitigating factors explicitly catered for by RTAct apply, e.g. overtaking at the time, if at all applicable and proved by supporting evidence (a finding of fact to counter another).

So in the above context, if someone's speeding, then they know they could get caught, therefore shouldn't come crying when they are - they should be adults and assume responsibilities they have chosen to assume, not spoilt brats unhappy about getting a dressing down for comitting an offense FFS!

Macy

whippet wrote:

if you didn't catch the law breakers there would be no incentive for others to respect the law. You can't have it both ways.

If people went over the limit past a marked car/ marked camera, of course they would still be caught.

It isn't a case of having it both ways - not catching people but actually slowing them down is more effective than catching people for the sake of it?

I'll use another example. What would be more effective at reducing drink driving on a Saturday night? A unmarked car pulling over one person the whole night, or a marked car cruising up and down outside pub car parks in a village for example?

edmund_f

all very true, very 'letter of the law' points. Yes you are correct. Personally i would prefer to see these limited resources spent on speed/drink checks late at night.

I would imagine the original posters gripe may have been that there was a temporary speed limit on the road that was not reasonable, thus he was exceeding the speed limit, but not speeding.

As we all know there is no point in going to a cop with the very valid point that the speed limit is unreasonable, because they will come back with 'the law is the law' (more like quotas are quotas) so, again personally, the op may be looking for a just outcome using an unjust method.

whippet

but actually slowing them down is more effective than catching people for the sake of it?

you have misread my point.

If there was a high vis car at the point, but not with a camera, you would have people slowing down (well those that see the car) and then increase the speed again afterwards .. hence only slowing the traffic at a certian point. With low visability cameras people will be more concious of their speeds all the time not just when they see a police car.

I believe that most people who have recieved points for speeding by a gatso will lower their average speeds, if this is true then the method is scucessful.

Whereby people will eventually not slow down just because there is a marked police car knocking about unless they know there is the risk of being penalised.

Speed limits are there for a reason and if you are willing to risk breaking it take your punishment. As for the OP, who is he/she to decide that the limit they are incroaching is reasonable or not? How can someone travelling at 120kph on a motorway think they know what the inherrant dangers ahead are before they are even near them.

edmund_f

whippet wrote:

you have misread my point.

If there was a high vis car at the point, but not with a camera, you would have people slowing down (well those that see the car) and then increase the speed again afterwards .. hence only slowing the traffic at a certian point. With low visability cameras people will be more concious of their speeds all the time not just when they see a police car.

so, to make the obivious point, we should spend our time abserving speed limits, not the road.

whippet wrote:

I believe that most people who have recieved points for speeding by a gatso will lower their average speeds, if this is true then the method is scucessful.

i very much doubt people lower their average speed, they just make up the time on roads where there are no cops, or adust their route, speaking of habitual speeders here of course

whippet wrote:

Whereby people will eventually not slow down just because there is a marked police car knocking about unless they know there is the risk of being penalised.

Speed limits are there for a reason and if you are willing to risk breaking it take your punishment. As for the OP, who is he/she to decide that the limit they are incroaching is reasonable or not? How can someone travelling at 120kph on a motorway think they know what the inherrant dangers ahead are before they are even near them.

same way as everyone else, drive as fast as you can see.

i have always contested that, and bear with me here, any speed trap where a cop can hide behind a bush, then on detecting a speeding car, walk out in front of them and the driver has given themselves enough space and time to react to and stop completly is not speeding, i think the current speed limits are for the lowest common denominator driving (both car and driver).

Just as equally i will drive at 10-20kph on main streets in towns with lots of pedestrians etc. and find it totally frustrating to have to drive at 100Kph on open roads. (god bless cruise control)

ambro25

Macy wrote:

I'll use another example. What would be more effective at reducing drink driving on a Saturday night? A unmarked car pulling over one person the whole night, or a marked car cruising up and down outside pub car parks in a village for example?

Wrong example, if you'll permit.

That is 'prevention', not determination leading to enforcement. A more appropriate example, again if you'll permit, in the context of the the thread, would be: a breath-test point on a road highly-frequented by drink drivers at a certain time, e.g. main artery in/out of Dublin on a Friday/Staurday night, as opposed to one on the entrance to an anonymous small estate somewhere in 'burbia.

And observing speed limits and the road are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the faster the speed, the narrower the 'optimal' peripheral vision/visual detection cone.
And both approaches, if judiciously (long stretch I know) used in cooperation would lead to reduction of drink driving. Just the same as with high-visibility presence (preventing people from speeding) plus speed checks (condemning people for speeding)

edmund_f

ambro25 wrote:

And both approaches, if judiciously (long stretch I know) used in cooperation would lead to reduction of drink driving. Just the same as with high-visibility presence (preventing people from speeding) plus speed checks (condemning people for speeding)

exactly, a unmarked gatso at the side of a road, at a speed change, would be the unmarked, where are the marked?. Where are the speed checks at the high risk locations?. Where are the drink drive checks (i personally have never met one). I think the cops seriously have to look at their road enforcement policy and 'cop' themselves on a bit.