yeah they often fly around the phoenix park on them, and on horses too for some reason. it's crazy that in this day and age we allow children to gallop horses around the city centre, but that's a whole other matter.
I think it's not a bad point but likely these are feelings that would be felt on a subconscious level. Most people consider themselves to be good drivers so it would be a very deep subconscious level
It looks like you are showing a cognitive dissonance because your neighbor uses one as part of a blood bag delivery team or maybe you do truly believe that only 4% of them are uninsured
You might need to re-read my post: I have expressed no opinion on the numbers of uninsured scramblers. I have no feel for what % might be insured or road legal and I'd guess a high percentage are not because they're typically used on dirt bike tracks etc. I'm also reasonably sure I don't have any cognitive dissonance regarding them or their usage: I also have recently had an antisocial neighbour who allowed his young kids to use their scrambler on the green. Which was appalling tbh but only the tip of the iceberg unfortunately. Again, the issue there was the people rather than the type of motorcycle, there were a LOT of other things that family were doing.
The thing that gets me is the "Police ahead" alerts on Google Maps - I got one in advance of a speed van on the way back from Mayo at the weekend. Why are they allowed? Isn't it the case you can be done for going past a Garda checkpoint/speed check and flashing oncomers to warn them?
This barely raised a heckle in the "concerned" media when it was flagged over a year ago. One popped up on my screen yesterday and was a complete distraction as I was trying to figure out the next exit/ keep an eye on traffic in front etc. But it's motoring, and tech, so nothing to see here.
as far as the general public, and it seems most judges, are concerned, speed checks are only fair if you know about them in advance and are given a fair chance to slow down. Otherwise it's "sneaky' or a "tax on the hard-pressed motorist"
04/02, reps from cycling organisations are due to appear before the Oireachtas Transport Committee to discuss road safety. Amongst topics: Cycling Ireland will say that nothing is preventing full implementation of the urban 30km limit right now, “except political will”.
edit
I saw that on rte.ie
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2026/0204/1556611-escooters-oireachtas-committee/
I also noticed this…
Age Friendly Ireland's Chief Officer Catherine McGuigan will stress the importance of high-vis vests for pedestrians and suggest that they are distributed to older people through pharmacies, primary care centres, GP surgeries and libraries.
🙄
—double post—
I wonder did they bother engaging with 'older' people before coming out with this nonsense? Will we see Michael D. in a hi-viz popping out to shops and restaurants now? Or any of the dinosaurs in the Dail? Such b*****it but it steadily creeping in as the accepted logical next step in "road safety". In reality its borne of 1) laziness, 2) indulging 'othering' and 3) a desire by a small militant section of society to stick it to 'the liberal wokes' wherever possible. And anyone who doesn't drive a car (because lets be honest, none of these cheerleaders will be making any recommendations that motorists stick one on before they get out of the car) is seen in their minds as being the enemy to be taken down a peg or two.
The point of a speed van is not to catch a speeding driver, it's to slow down traffic in the vicinity of the speed van. If you get an alert and slow down as a result then that's job done as far as the enforcement van is concerned. If you haven't slowed down then you get a fine and the idea is that you will slow down next time
Most of the regional roads were turned into 60 zones last year, how did road deaths for last year compare to 2024? Not sure a 30km/h speed limit will make a difference in most urban areas, most of the time you're probably lucky to be doing 10km/h
Can you expand on or explain the basis for your logic? Where do you get the comment about the point of speed vans, for example. You state it as though its a fact.
What do you think the driver doing 120 in a 100 zone does after, having slowed to 100 upon getting an alert, he passes the speed van? In my experience, after the drivers in the 'fast lane' jump on the brakes so that I end up undertaking them below the speed limit in the 'slow lane', they cause a back of traffic behind as everyone races up to also jump on the brakes, and then after the van has been passed they all simply accelerate back up to 'must get ahead' speed, undertaking anyone who doesn't do the same quickly enough.
Are you arguing against the science of the different effects of collisions at different speeds? Or what point are you trying to actually make with the questions and assumptions in the last paragraph of your post?
Age Friendly Ireland would be considered a group that represents 'older' people and also from that RTE article
Her statements will follow the organisation's consultations with older people on road safety last year, at the request of An Garda Síochána.
I live in a neighbourhood with a lot of older people and the one issue they all have is the street lighting, which the council never seem to be able to get fixed, and the nearby traffic lights not giving enough time to cross the road. Hi-vis never gets mentioned
FAQ page on the mobile safety cameras to expand on the basis of my logic
https://www.garda.ie/en/roads-policing/safety-cameras/garda-mobile-safety-cameras-faq-s.pdf
Page 3
Is this a revenue-generating exercise? No. The key objective of the project is to reduce the number of speed relatedcollisions and therefore save lives. GoSafe will be paid on the basis ofenforcement hours and survey hours conducted. The hourly rates to be paid arenot linked in any way to the number of detections made.
Page 4
How many detections do you anticipate GoSafe to make? We’re hoping for none. The objective is to reduce speed and save lives.
How do you measure the success of this project? The success will be measured based on a reduction in speed across the road network, as well as based on a reduction in the number of fatal, serious andminor injury collisions on our roads. Based on the experience with other projects, for example the introduction ofpenalty points and mandatory alcohol testing, we anticipate that there will be an immediate reduction in speed across the road network followed by a long-termreduction which will lead to saving lives.
So by alerting drivers to the locations of speed vans you are doing their work for them of ensuring the traffic passing them is below the speed limit.
that's a brilliant strategy for reducing speed beside speed vans.
i'll use the analogy again of store detectives.
let's say you have 10 shops and one store detective. what's the best policy - to have a plain clothes store detective to catch thieves, or a uniformed store detective whose location you announce in advance?
or; from the thief's point of view; do you want to walk into a shop not knowing if there's someone in plain clothes keeping an eye out for your pilfering, or do you want to walk into a shop knowing the guy who could catch you is in a different shop?
Alternatively, you could get rid of the van, replace it with a very visible hut or shed. The hut would be installed at every location where you see the speed check sign. The only thing is that you do not know when the hut is occupied or unoccupied. So no increase in staffing or working hours.
It's true for you. Measuring a driver's speed in one location is a bit pointless. Measuring it over a distance, such as the average speed zones we have in some parts of the country, is far more effective
Because as is the case in your detective analogy, a 10% chance of being caught is a risk that some will take and 90% will get away with
The point of a speed van is not to catch a speeding driver, it's to slow down traffic in the vicinity of the speed van….
That's why they're very visible - they're not hiding behind trees waiting to jump out. Flashing your lights as a warning is AFAIK illegal - at least for AGS stops, GoSafe vans might be different - as they can alert somebody that doesn't want to run into the Guards for whatever reason that the should do a u-ie. Radar detectors are illegal (do they still work?), yet chucking up a big distracting warning on Google maps is fine?
None of this works without enforcement with teeth - and that requires a systemic change which with the bunch of knuckle-draggers propping up our current government is looking unlikely. An enforced 30km/h limit will make a difference. I live in the center of a medium sized town with a long straight road on the way in where few pay any attention to the current 50km/h limit. Even the narrow street on which I live seems to act as a drag strip for them and the stop sign at the junction is merely a piece of decoration as they never give way never mind stop.
[deleted - double post as Boards was playing up]
what you're describing is a fixed speed camera. But the general principal is the same: visible enforcement in certain locations, everywhere else, drive it like you stole it. It just reinforces the idea that speed limits are optional.
Alternatively you could increase the number of huts and staff them 24/7 and instead of just measuring speed they could measure the time it takes for a vehicle to travel between any two of the huts so if they were speeding at any point in between the huts they would get fined
or, alternatively, you could paint the vans drab colours and not announce their locations.
so instead of people knowing where the vans are, and knowing where they can't (and can) speed, make them aware that if they speed they could be caught without them even knowing. at least, until they see the flash.
Well if that's the case (which I don't believe it is… I think you've misconstrued the words quoted) then don't bother with the expense of cameras and the associated tech, outsourcing of processing, employing people to process everything etc, just paint loads of vans and park them up around the country.
TL;DR, I don't agree with your analysis or interpretation. Speed vans, IMO, are there to a) provide an accurate picture of the prevalence of speeding in particular locations (which is skewed now if tech tells people to slow down for a couple of hundred meters) and b) to provide a punishment for those that do speed. In another post today you ask if the reduction in speed has resulted in reduced accidents - why would it if driver behaviour hasn't changed because speeding drivers only slow down for the short section where they've been informed they may be caught? You can't have it both ways.
"The point of a speed van is not to catch a speeding driver, it's to slow down traffic in the vicinity of the speed van" is one of the craziest notions I've read on here. If the point is only to slow drivers down for that 500m, then very little is achieved. It's the threat that a speed van could be around any corner that keeps people driving under the limit at all times. If they never caught anyone then what's the point
There would be a health and safety aspect, if drab coloured vans were parked on the hard shoulder then they could be hit by drivers who might not see them
Drivers won't stop speeding until they feel they're being monitored at all times
See above comment which references Garda website FAQ detailing this crazy notion
I agree with the rest of your statement that monitoring drivers in one location does nothing for the overall reduction of speed. But the very nature of speed vans as we currently have them is they will only monitor speed in a specific location so really what's the point in them?
https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2026/02/04/scramblers-seized-by-gardai-should-not-be-returned-says-harris/
Meanwhile, there are plans to bring in other regulations for the use of e-bikes and e-scooters, including mandatory use of helmets and high-visibility clothing.
this seems to not be getting as much attention as it should be? a clear kneejerk 'we must be seen to be doing something' reaction, but why are they including e-bikes? they're not treated the same as scooters under legislation AFAIK, so i don't think it's a case that a law applying to one would automatically apply to both?
and what is the legal definition of 'hi-vis'? please please PLEASE let it be the case that all those hi-vis jackets the RSA bought wouldn't qualify if it's a very prescriptive definition.
Think the answer to both is some nuance rather than abroad statement….
