Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Survey van attacked and destroyed in Louth

24

Comments

  • #32
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    De Hipster wrote: »
    Eh someone died?!.
    Good point! Attempted murder.


  • #33
    cul-2008
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 272 ✭✭cul-2008


    Biggins wrote: »
    Actions of intimating low brained idiots.
    The public will have to fork out for the cost of replacing the van, equipment an other possible expenses (be it now the vans will have to be also have another Garda on duty when the vans are being used and/or higher insurance premiums which we too will be paying for).

    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't see how the public will have to fork out any money to replace the van as it is owned by GoSafe, a private consortium, and not AGS?

    On another note, trying to kill someone for earning a wage is pathetic on all levels. If you get caught, just suck it up like everyone else.


  • #34
    De Hipster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,160 ✭✭✭De Hipster


    My understanding was that the Gardaí designated the locations of these GoSafe vans, why in that case was the van situated at a non Accident Black spot conducting a traffic volume survey at 5am?

    Not in any way condoning the actions of the person/people who set fire to the van...but 15 vans for the purposes of road safety not effectively deployed to carry out the duties for which they were engaged.


  • #35
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    cul-2008 wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't see how the public will have to fork out any money to replace the van as it is owned by GoSafe, a private consortium, and not AGS?
    In a number of ways.

    If the insurance premiums are increased for a private company, where does a person think those increased charges alone are going to be passed onto?
    The state as it requests their further services!
    Who is going to end up paying possibly for the medical bills for anyone injured and/or for the need of a Garda presence at times?


  • #36
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    cul-2008 wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't see how the public will have to fork out any money to replace the van as it is owned by GoSafe, a private consortium, and not AGS?

    On another note, trying to kill someone for earning a wage is pathetic on all levels. If you get caught, just suck it up like everyone else.

    [cough]
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68965652&postcount=1
    http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/~peoplesr/forums//showpost.php?p=3490461&postcount=6

    Xavier McCauliffe, the well known Kerry Businessman who was prosecuted for crashing his helicopter resulting in the death of a young female passenger is the man behind this company. He owned Spectra Photo in Listowel, and sees this as a replacement revenue stream now that everyone is gone digital and photo processing is extinct. He is also a committed Fianna Fáil supporter.

    The contract was awarded by the department of justice which is headed up by Fianna Fáil minister, Dermot Aherne.
    [/cough]

    ==
    Stop talking down the economy. Soft Landing any minute now.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    DamoDLK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 716 ✭✭✭DamoDLK


    Contrary to other posts - The Dundalk Carrickmacross road is a very bad and potentially dangerous road, anybody that actually knows the road - knows this to be true.


  • #38
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    De Hipster wrote: »
    My understanding was that the Gardaí designated the locations of these GoSafe vans, why in that case was the van situated at a non Accident Black spot conducting a traffic volume survey at 5am?

    Not in any way condoning the actions of the person/people who set fire to the van...but 15 vans for the purposes of road safety not effectively deployed to carry out the duties for which they were engaged.

    It wasn't a gosafe speed van. It shocks me how people cant comprehend this.


  • #39
    Lando Griffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,952 ✭✭✭Lando Griffin


    Zulu wrote: »
    Good point! Attempted murder.

    Or even attempted manslaughter.


  • #40
    DarkJager
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    k_mac wrote: »
    It wasn't a gosafe speed van. It shocks me how people cant comprehend this.

    The RTE news says it was.
    Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy has condemned the arson attack on a GoSafe van


  • #41
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Originally Posted by Zulu
    Good point! Attempted murder.
    Lando Griffin wrote: »
    Or even attempted manslaughter.

    Not 100% sure which one is applicable but roughly...

    Manslaughter is something that happens in the heat of the moment or in a semi-state of madness, etc - but not really planned in advance.

    Murder or it attempt is something that is more so planned in advance.

    If someone chucked a petrol bomb it might be argued that it there was a clear previous intention (to the actual act) to doing the deed (gathering and preparation of substances/equipment used) - so it could be a charge of attempted murder in the first or second degree.

    ...However I could be wrong and lets be honest, the chances of the culprit(s) being caught and found is sadly unlikely.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    DarkJager wrote: »
    The RTE news says it was.

    Ah well if RTE says so it must be true. The van was owned by GoSafe but was not a speed van.


  • #43
    cul-2008
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 272 ✭✭cul-2008


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    [cough]

    [/cough]

    ==
    Stop talking down the economy. Soft Landing any minute now.

    Somehow I think the IMF won't be up for handing 70k to a Kerry man to replace one of his privately owned vans. The days when supporting Fianna Fáil worked in your favour are slowly diminishing, and because your best buds with Joe Soap in the Dáil means feck all to the boys at the EU & the IMF.


  • #44
    I.S.T.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 893 ✭✭✭I.S.T.


    De Hipster wrote: »
    My understanding was that the Gardaí designated the locations of these GoSafe vans, why in that case was the van situated at a non Accident Black spot conducting a traffic volume survey at 5am?

    Not in any way condoning the actions of the person/people who set fire to the van...but 15 vans for the purposes of road safety not effectively deployed to carry out the duties for which they were engaged.

    Some of the vans are used to monitor speed levels on roads which are not in the list of locations where the speed traps will be. If there is a high percentage of people speeding on that stretch of road then it will be added to the list. It looks like this van was one of the ones monitoring speed levels. Although why was it was there at 5am?? Surely the most effective way to monitor is later in the day when the traffic volumes are high.


  • #45
    De Hipster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,160 ✭✭✭De Hipster


    k_mac wrote: »
    It wasn't a gosafe speed van. It shocks me how people cant comprehend this.

    Media coverage implies it was...

    Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy has condemned the arson attack on a GoSafe van.

    "GoSafe van personnel are out on our roads day and night working with An Garda Siochana to reduce speed-related collisions and stop the needless loss of lives on our roads.

    The Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy has condemned this morning’s arson attack on a mobile speed van in Co Louth.

    The van was owned by GoSafe, the private consortium which is contracted to run the mobile speed camera network in Ireland.


  • #46
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    "a speed camera survey van"

    From RTE news. First paragraph.


  • #47
    cul-2008
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 272 ✭✭cul-2008


    Biggins wrote: »
    In a number of ways.

    If the insurance premiums are increased for a private company, where does a person think those increased charges alone are going to be passed onto?
    The state as it requests their further services!
    Who is going to end up paying possibly for the medical bills for anyone injured and/or for the need of a Garda presence at times?

    In all fairness I referred to the fact that you said we would be liable to pay for the van, which isn't true. An extra few thousand on on insurance premium will no doubt be added to the upcoming invoice addressed to the state, an increase which is something you'd want to be very brave to try and charge given the gross earnings GoSafe are earning from this scheme - especially with the EU and the IMF on the scene.

    It could also be viewed as a risk one takes, which must be absorbed from the companies profits.

    You can get into the nitty gritty of what if's etc, but in my opinion it's creating an unnecessary negative attitude towards an already negatively viewed GoSafe.


  • #48
    petes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,382 ✭✭✭petes


    What the fcuks a gatso!


  • #49
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Dannyboy83 wrote: »
    [cough]

    [/cough]

    ==
    Stop talking down the economy. Soft Landing any minute now.
    Whats the point of your post Dannyboy83? Are you suggesting that because the company owner is a Fianna Fail supporter it somehow excuses someone else to throw a petrol bomb into a van that a person is sat in??

    No? Then what's your point? Why obfuscate the issue or the actions of a dirty scumbag?


  • #50
    bladespin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,557 ✭✭✭bladespin


    Was only a matter of time, more will go the same way.
    Untitled Image

    MasteryDarts Ireland - Master your game!



  • #51
    Flesh Gorden
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭Flesh Gorden


    k_mac wrote: »
    It wasn't a speed camera van. It was there to monitor volumes of traffic.

    Wrong, below from the garda site
    On a phased basis, GoSafe will provide 6,000 enforcement hours and 1,475 survey hours per month across the country.

    For the 6,000 enforcement hours, the cameras will operate from vans which will be marked with high visibility reflective material and will display a saf€ty cam€ra symbol. Images of the vans are available on the right hand side of this page.

    The survey hours will be conducted from unmarked vans, in order to accurately observe and record the speeds at which vehicles are currently travelling, for survey purposes only.

    In other words, they're seeking out new future locations by doing speed surveys now, nothing to do with traffic volumes

    per year it works out around 3611 fines per van per year to break even on €65m over 5 years

    so expect to see them more on motorways and other duel carriageways instead of blackspots

    besides parking up a van on the hard shoulder is more dangerous then any speeding


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Flesh Gorden
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭Flesh Gorden


    bladespin wrote: »
    Was only a matter of time, more will go the same way.

    Very true, I was expecting to hear more of people smashing the back windows or spray painting them as the camera only operates from the rear right hand door


    even the tuf-tuf club didn't go that far


  • #53
    I.S.T.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 893 ✭✭✭I.S.T.


    Flesh Gorden wrote: »
    In other words, they're seeking out new future locations by doing speed surveys now, nothing to do with traffic volumes
    And nothing to do with road safety either. They are not looking at the crash rate on the road, just the areas where most people speed = highest revenue


  • #54
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Flesh Gorden wrote: »
    Wrong, below from the garda site



    In other words, they're seeking out new future locations by doing speed surveys now, nothing to do with traffic volumes

    per year it works out around 3611 fines per van per year to break even on €65m over 5 years

    so expect to see them more on motorways and other duel carriageways instead of blackspots

    besides parking up a van on the hard shoulder is more dangerous then any speeding

    How am I wrong? What you quoted is what I said.

    And parking on a hard shoulder is not more dangerous than speeding.


  • #55
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,369 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Lando Griffin wrote: »
    Or even attempted manslaughter.

    Or even successful vanslaughter.


  • #56
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Zulu wrote: »
    Whats the point of your post Dannyboy83? Are you suggesting that because the company owner is a Fianna Fail supporter it somehow excuses someone else to throw a petrol bomb into a van that a person is sat in??

    No? Then what's your point? Why obfuscate the issue or the actions of a dirty scumbag?


    erm.............no

    Why don't you go back and read the post I quoted/try to keep it in context:
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't see how the public will have to fork out any money to replace the van as it is owned by GoSafe, a private consortium, and not AGS?

    You are blatantly overlooking our famous brand of crony capitalism btw.

    You missed the entire point of the post tbh.


  • #57
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    dont really understand people giving out about speeding fines. dont speed and you dont have to pay fines. its not rocket science


  • #58
    Dannyboy83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Helix wrote: »
    dont really understand people giving out about speeding fines. dont speed and you dont have to pay fines. its not rocket science

    Speed camera are 'supposed' to be used in dangerous areas to save lives.

    In Ireland, they're used in "sweet spots" as a revenue generator/cash cow.

    That's the problem people have with them.
    i.e. Stealth taxing


  • #59
    Pookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 544 ✭✭✭Pookah


    Insurgent wrote: »
    What the fcuks a gatso!

    A gatsometer, after the company who make the speed cameras.


  • #60
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    cul-2008 wrote: »
    In all fairness I referred to the fact that you said we would be liable to pay for the van, which isn't true.
    ...And in fairness back, I stated this when it was said previously to my post, that the van was something else, a state camera for catching speeders.

    ...Since then, corrected by another poster.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,369 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Helix wrote: »
    dont really understand people giving out about speeding fines. dont speed and you dont have to pay fines. its notrocket science

    If you were into rocket science, your mode of transport probably wouldn't register.


Advertisement
Advertisement