The case against average speed cameras

But it does get big and complicated very quickly.

Assuming measuring speed from A to B is different to measuring speed from B to A when you have one stretch of road there are only two pairs of cameras.

With ten cameras there are 90 possible pairs. With 100 cameras, 990 pairs.

Tracking and delivering parcels is far easier. They follow planned routes between a limited number of defined locations - van (collection) - one or more hub / distribution centres - van (out for delivery / delivered).

A fully ineterconnected mesh of average speed cameras would need all cameras time sychronised with high accuracy, real time capture, storage, processing, sharing of images, numberplate, timestamp for each passing vehicle, searching for previous capture of same vehicle from other cameras, average speed calculation, checking against insurance, motor tax, nct /cvrt databases, forwarding data / images / evidence for any offences detected to a prosecution processing system, ageing + deleting vehicle information once it has been processed, … It's a lot more complex.

Its almost as if Irish drivers were not allowed to drive on motorways while learning so never learned how to properly drive on motorways (and other multi-lane roads)

Because it forces drivers to undertake on Lane 1 (which happens quite a bit) or overtake in Lane 3. It can create a dangerous situation when they are also doing 20 below the posted limit because it creates a sharp speed differential between you and the folks overtaking you (and the unnecessary queue of traffic behind you) in Lane 3 so you can't get past the rolling roadblock.

Keep Left, it isn't rocket science

This is by far my biggest peeve, the obsession with speed (from the RSA). The way they blather on about it you'd swear that speeding was the only cause of accidents, 100kph in a 100kph zone is just fine, but dare to do 101 and you're going to have an immediate accident and join the statistics!

We have badly set speed limits with sharp drops (without gradation) in some places (like the sections of the N25 that drop from 100 to 60)

We have perfectly good roads with pointlessly low limits (like the R710) and some fairly terrible roads (like the N25 in places) with much higher limits that just don't make sense

While most of Europe has a sensible enforcement, ours is slapdash with a one-size-fits-all punishment. Get caught doing 125 in a 120 on a Motorway and face the same penalty for doing 60 in a 50 - one is very much more dangerous than the other.

I'm all for having average cameras (and fixed cameras) across the road network, not just on motorways, I'd like if that were followed up with a revision of our penalty system

They are never trained to do it, it's illegal while a Learner and once you pass your test you're on your own to figure it out. There's no point just having it in the Rules of the Road books you're (in theory) studying before taking your test without getting to practice it with an experienced instructor

Your choice is sit behind the slow moving middle-lane hogger, move back into Lane 1 and undertake them (assuming it's empty by that point) or risk being rear-ended as you pull out into Lane 3 with cars going 20-40kph faster than you (those gaps close pretty fast unless you floor it)

It really isn't hard, just don't hog the middle lane, it's almost as bad as parking between two spaces "because someone might bang their door against my car"

The problem isn't with implementing average speed cameras throughout the motorway network. As you correctly point out information only needs to be exchanged between adjacent pairs of cameras.

The problem is with the suggestion that it would be simple to extend this to the wider road network. This changes the interconnectity requirements from pairs to a mesh, orders of magnitude greater to implement.

That's also used in the UK, to catch duplicated registrations. If it would impossible to travel between too cameras in a set period, then the ANPR system can direct police to both cars in real time to check out thier drivers.

ANPR is already used to check insurance, NCT, motor tax, if the registered owner has a diving ban. All these are valid legal uses of ANPR. Why would identifying if a vehicle showed up at implausibly distant locations to detect cloning be any different?

If vehicle data was retained for longer than strictly necessary to identify and process any infringements it would be a problem alright.

But, but, the ROTR must be slavishly followed no matter what the practical implications. The only way this perfect utopian thereotical paradise works is if humans are removed from driving cars. Tbh when you read some of the posts on here and other 'Motors' threads that's the only option to reduce the foaming and pearl clutching

Compare the road deaths per population to our European neighbors, who have enforcement, and cameras.

Our figures are among the lowest in Europe, with the exception of a some Nordic countries.