Survey van attacked and destroyed in Louth

De Hipster · 26-11-2010 04:16PM

Pookah wrote: »

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

Ironically named after their rally-driver inventor; Maurice Gatsonides who originally invented the Gatso speed camera to measure his cornering speed in an attempt to improve his driving. From here

I.S.T. · 26-11-2010 04:23PM

Helix wrote: »

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

They should rename them to what they really are then, greed cameras, not "safety cameras"

Seloth · 26-11-2010 04:23PM

Lol the opening too this thread reminds me of when fox news thought Obama was a terrorist cause he shook hands with a man in a crowd who is suspected of being a terrorist :pac:

TopBombing · 26-11-2010 04:30PM

Lightshow wrote: »

I believe the proper response here goes something like this...

G'wan de tooooown!!

What the hell was a gatso doing on this road anyway. I know the north east area like the back of my hand. I have no memory at all of any deaths or seroius injury on this road over the past 20 years.

1 less gatso = 1 less stealth tax on the people of Ireland. Having said that though, I don't condone vandalism of any kind and I'm glad that nobody was hurt.

You obviously dont know the road that well then, or maybe it's just your memory thats going.

There have been at least 3 people killed on that road in the last 10 - 15 years.

MagicSean · 26-11-2010 04:31PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

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

The ones in my area are all in blackspots.

Mozoltov! · 26-11-2010 04:53PM

For those nit-picking at the small details, what the feck does it matter?

Whether they burned out a Gatso van, GoSafe van or even just a van with a feckin' fridge in it!

The point is they were dirty little scumbags to do it, especially with someone inside the thing!

Dannyboy83 · 26-11-2010 05:10PM

k_mac wrote: »

The ones in my area are all in blackspots.

Cool, I've no problem where they are used correctly.

Try the Mallow road in Cork.

A girl died right outside my old apartment there 3 years ago.
If the guards had been where they were supposed to be with their speed guns, that girl would still be alive.

Instead, they were further down, in a non-dangerous area where there is a subtle speed change. ching ching!!

p.s. they hid their motorbikes/cars in an industrial area next door and sniped people, which is illegal, their vehicles must be present to act as a deterrent.
I witnessed 7 crashes in 2 days, I sh1t you not!

People (esp. women) who may be just 1kmph over the limit see the gun, smash on the brakes, CRASH!

marcsignal · 26-11-2010 05:11PM

Gardaí are appealing for witnesses.

presumably they cant retrieve any pics from whats left of the camera

.

Biggins · 26-11-2010 05:20PM

marcsignal wrote: »

presumably they cant retrieve any pics from whats left of the camera

.

Not necessarily. Data recovery software takes time - if indeed the internal van system(s) are damaged at all.
They are probably also looking for additional more immediate help.

Helix · 26-11-2010 05:20PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

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

theyre the same in every country

its very very very simple, dont break the speeding laws and you dont pay this "stealth tax", break it and you might need to. thats your call to make, once you break the speed limit youre accepting the fact that you might have to pay for it

Son Of A Vidic · 26-11-2010 05:21PM

1 down 44 to go. From what I can see in my part of the world, the widest and safest stretches of road are listed. This despite having no blackspot/accident history. These are the stretches of road we depending on, to safely overtake the incompetent 8astard who drives at 55KPH in a 100KPH zone and then speeds up going through a 50KPH zone.

Helix · 26-11-2010 05:21PM

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

They should rename them to what they really are then, greed cameras, not "safety cameras"

who do you think gets the money exactly?

Johnny Derpp · 26-11-2010 05:23PM

Just drive really really fast so that the camera can't see you.

MagicSean · 26-11-2010 05:27PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Cool, I've no problem where they are used correctly.

Try the Mallow road in Cork.

A girl died right outside my old apartment there 3 years ago.
If the guards had been where they were supposed to be with their speed guns, that girl would still be alive.

Instead, they were further down, in a non-dangerous area where there is a subtle speed change. ching ching!!

The problem with manned speed checkpoints is that they cannot generally be in the location where the collisions occur because these tend to be dangerous places to be standing. So if there is a dangerous corner you have to plant yourself a certain distance on either side. The fact of the matter is that no Garda has any interest in earning money for the state and gets no reward for dishing out speeding tickets. The vans on the other hand offer more safety to the occupant and can be placed closer but they still cannot endanger traffic or themselves.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

p.s. they hid their motorbikes/cars in an industrial area next door and sniped people, which is illegal, their vehicles must be present to act as a deterrent.

It's not illegal and there cars do not have to be visible. The vehicles have to be in a spot that is safe and allows for them to follow someone who takes chase.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I witnessed 7 crashes in 2 days, I sh1t you not!

People (esp. women) who may be just 1kmph over the limit see the gun, smash on the brakes, CRASH!

There's no accounting for stupidity. People like this shouldn't be on the road.

The Dagda · 26-11-2010 05:39PM

k_mac wrote: »

It's not illegal and there cars do not have to be visible. The vehicles have to be in a spot that is safe and allows for them to follow someone who takes chase.

which is better, in your opinion, being visible and PREVENTING speeding or being invisible and CATCHING speeders?

The Dagda · 26-11-2010 05:41PM

k_mac wrote: »

There's no accounting for stupidity. People like this shouldn't be on the road.

So all people that crash are stupid?

Dannyboy83 · 26-11-2010 05:43PM

k_mac wrote: »

The problem with manned speed checkpoints is that they cannot generally be in the location where the collisions occur because these tend to be dangerous places to be standing.
So if there is a dangerous corner you have to plant yourself a certain distance on either side.

Have you actually seen the Mallow road?

It's a long, straight dual carraigeway.
The speed limit changes several times over the course of a few hundred metres. (sweet spot, ching ching!)
The guards hide at the entrance to an industrial estate on the left hand side, hide down behind the wall and snipe oncoming traffic, in the low risk zone. They blatantly ignore the high risk zone.

What you're saying does not correlate.

The fact of the matter is that no Garda has any interest in earning money for the state and gets no reward for dishing out speeding tickets. The vans on the other hand offer more safety to the occupant and can be placed closer but they still cannot endanger traffic or themselves.

That may be true, but I recall reading an interview on the late late show years ago where a traffic cop claimed they had a certain tally to meet and they couldn't finish their shift until they had reached it.

It's not illegal and there cars do not have to be visible. The vehicles have to be in a spot that is safe and allows for them to follow someone who takes chase.

I don't think this is correct.
AFAIK, The vehicles must be visible, to act as a deterrent, altho I am open to correction as it may differ in Ireland.

There's no accounting for stupidity. People like this shouldn't be on the road.

This is simply not true; there is more than enough evidence to refute this statement
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1105689/The-1m-year-motorway-speed-camera-CAUSING-accidents.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300830/Speed-cameras-caused-28-000-accidents-decade.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2212479.stm

Dannyboy83 · 26-11-2010 05:47PM

Helix wrote: »

its very very very simple, dont break the speeding laws and you dont pay this "stealth tax", break it and you might need to. thats your call to make, once you break the speed limit youre accepting the fact that you might have to pay for it

I certainly agree with that, but you are blatantly ignoring the sweet spot argument.

The Dagda · 26-11-2010 05:49PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What you're saying does not correlate.

K-mac's logic is flawed and he's inventing scenario's to support his poorly hatched ideas...

Helix · 26-11-2010 05:50PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I certainly agree with that, but you are blatantly ignoring the sweet spot argument.

im not

i agree with it, but surely the best places to put speed cameras are the places where people most frequently speed

MagicSean · 26-11-2010 05:51PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Have you actually seen the Mallow road?

It's a long, straight dual carraigeway.
The speed limit changes several times over the course of a few hundred metres. (sweet spot)
The guards hide at the entrance to an industrial estate on the left hand side, hide down behind the wall and snipe oncoming traffic.

What you're saying does not correlate.

I haven't seen the Mallow road and i don't know the area at all so I'll take your word for it.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

That may be true, but I recall reading an interview on the late late show years ago where a traffic cop claimed they had a certain tally to meet and they couldn't finish their shift until they had reached it.

Maybe a quota did exist at one time.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't think this is correct.
AFAIK, The vehicles must be visible, to act as a deterrent, altho I am open to correction as it may differ in Ireland. Certainly in the UK, the vehicle must be visible.

There is no law that says this. Not in Ireland anyway. Maybe it is just a policy in England.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

This is simply not true; there is more than enough evidence to refute this statement
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1105689/The-1m-year-motorway-speed-camera-CAUSING-accidents.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300830/Speed-cameras-caused-28-000-accidents-decade.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2212479.stm

You cannot blame the camera though. a person who crashes as a result of seeing a speed camera has either been speeding or is too bad a driver to be on the road. If this is how they react to a speed camera how would they react to a real emergency?

MagicSean · 26-11-2010 05:53PM

The Dagda wrote: »

So all people that crash are stupid?

That is clearly not what i said.

The Dagda wrote: »

K-mac's logic is flawed and he's inventing scenario's to support his poorly hatched ideas...

No I am just outlining some common sense.

Dannyboy83 · 26-11-2010 05:58PM

k_mac wrote: »

I haven't seen the Mallow road and i don't know the area at all so I'll take your word for it.

OK.
Btw, I don't object to situations where they are used correctly.
Just they rarely are.

e.g. they really need to put some speed cameras around Midleton and Bandon, where there are some crazy boy racers, but they don't.
I imagine that has something to do with throughput.

Also - timing???
I mean I know the guards don't like to work Fri/Sat at 2am, but c'mon like

There is no law that says this. Not in Ireland anyway. Maybe it is just a policy in England.

Ok, I'm open to correction on the law, but I certainly think it would be a sensible idea - we should be aiming to save lives/prevent accidents, not generating revenues.

You cannot blame the camera though. a person who crashes as a result of seeing a speed camera has either been speeding or is too bad a driver to be on the road. If this is how they react to a speed camera how would they react to a real emergency?

That's not the scenario suggested in the articles.
Try read the 3rd article - there are a variety of different scenarios.

metalgear2k2 · 26-11-2010 05:58PM

Survey van?

seamus · 26-11-2010 06:00PM

Louth. Chuckie country. Not surprised.

Dannyboy83 · 26-11-2010 06:02PM

Helix wrote: »

im not

i agree with it, but surely the best places to put speed cameras are the places where people most frequently speed

No.
That's precisely the problem.
That's merely a revenue generation exercise.

They ought to be put in HIGH-RISK areas.

Try some of the country roads around West Cork at the weekend, far more likely to save a few lives, but not gonna generate big bucks.

The Dagda · 26-11-2010 06:03PM

k_mac wrote: »

No I am just outlining some common sense.

That Gardai can't be at the correct places because it's too dangerous for a Garda and Garda car to be there, but it's okay for a privately operated vehicle to be parked in these same spots?...

That it's better to hide and catch speeders than be visible and prevent speeding...

Real common sense right there...

fryup · 26-11-2010 06:05PM

seamus wrote: »

Louth. Chuckie country. Not surprised.

yes, probably local provos paranoid that the cops were spying on they're cross border smuggling

MagicSean · 26-11-2010 06:06PM

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

e.g. they really need to put some speed cameras around Midleton and Bandon, where there are some crazy boy racers, but they don't.
I imagine that has something to do with throughput.

Have you ever written to the local station and suggested this? You'd be surprised how much difference a little input would make.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Also - timing???
I mean I know the guards don't like to work Fri/Sat at 2am, but c'mon like

I presume you mean that these are the times that the speeders are out. Unfortunately a lot of stuff happens at this time on a weekend. Fights, drink drivers, domestics. Also it is more dangerous to conduct a manned speed trap on a dark road late at night.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Ok, I'm open to correction on the law, but I certainly think it would be a sensible idea - we should be aiming to save lives/prevent accidents, not generating revenues.

I agree. I think there should be warning signs for all speed detection areas.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

That's not the scenario suggested in the articles.
Try read the 3rd article - there are a variety of different scenarios.

It says that they get distracted and brake eratically. So completely down to driver error. It also suggests that the cure for this is to make them stealth cameras.

MagicSean · 26-11-2010 06:08PM

The Dagda wrote: »

That Gardai can't be at the correct places because it's too dangerous for a Garda and Garda car to be there, but it's okay for a privately operated vehicle to be parked in these same spots?...

That it's better to hide and catch speeders than be visible and prevent speeding...

Real common sense right there...

Again you are deliberately misunderstanding and misquoting me.

Survey van attacked and destroyed in Louth

Comments