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).
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).
breezy1985 wrote: » Could do with a few to catch "magic parking light" users blocking up roads too
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.
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.
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 sharkhttps://www.garda.ie/en/roads-policing/safety-cameras/wexford-feb-2020.pdf
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
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
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 !
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
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.
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.
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"
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
breezy1985 wrote: » Why are you slamming on the break unless you are speeding?
Kevin Irving wrote: » They hit the brakes to protect themselves.
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
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b866050111185697984c86572569f0ea.svg)
