Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Speed camera mega-thread ***Read first post before posting***

Options
1…4546485051…123

Comments

  • Options
    #1412
    Ali Babba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 874 ✭✭✭Ali Babba


    Anan1 wrote: »
    A bit OT, but I thought we all know that revenue from speeding fines comes nowhere near meeting the cost of enforcement.

    It is another tax all the same though, admittedly one that could be avoided in theory but in the real world that's not the case for most people. Calling them safety cameras is another political play on words too in my opinion.


  • Options
    #1413
    Damer
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭Damer


    Ali Babba wrote: »
    Is it any wonder they're being set alight.......... That's the thing about this country, the powers that be are so efficient when it comes to any means of generating taxes and when the shoe is on the other foot and they're expected to deliver on something they're absolutely pathetic.

    Considering most modern trailers with a brand name have brakes and are well designed, 80kms seems a bit realistic on a motorway tbh.

    I'm sorry that's such an ill thought out comment.

    you think it's a good idea to set alight a van with a person inside?

    the vans aren't about taxes it's about reducing the number of road deaths.
    and someone with the same cavalier attitude as you caused the death of my partner on the roads :(


  • Options
    #1414
    mikedragon32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,939 ✭✭✭mikedragon32


    Ali Babba wrote: »
    It is another tax all the same though, admittedly one that could be avoided in theory but in the real world that's not the case for most people. Calling them safety cameras is another political play on words too in my opinion.
    If it IS a tax, then we should call it IDIOT tax...

    I've paid it twice. I was an idiot...

    It's a fine. If you speed you're disobeying the law. If you're caught, you get fined. Not taxed. End of.


  • Options
    #1415
    Wolverine_1999
    Registered Users Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭Wolverine_1999


    Agricola wrote: »
    I was driving out the N25 outside Waterford a couple of weeks back at around 9.30 on a quiet Monday night. As I was tootling along in the dark I noticed a lone transit van pulled in. Despite the fact I thought I was going way too slow to be over the limit, I slowed down abit while passing it and was happy to immediately see a sign for 80kph because I was doing 70kph.
    So wasnt I delighted to get a fine in the post today for the night in question. Apparently, I was doing 64kph in a "special speed limit zone" of 60kph. :mad:

    This is the kind of **** that really pisses me off and is typical of Ireland in general. A speed camera van setup on this runway wide stretch of completely deserted road on a dead monday night is complete bullshít. If Im out at night on an R road, doing 60 or 70 mph in a 50mph speed limit, I deserve everything I get, throw the fúcking book at me. But catching people in a situation like this is just a blatant exercise in extracting money for the sake of it.

    Appeal this bull****. Another thing is that Speed Camera signs were to be in place in all patrolled areas - did you see one? This is even more reinforced by the fact that they have started putting these signs up now, meaning that they did not have everything in place which was part of the initial agreement between the GoSafe, Gardai and the public.


  • Options
    #1416
    Ali Babba
    Closed Accounts Posts: 874 ✭✭✭Ali Babba


    Sorry for your troubles but where did I say it was a good idea to set fire to a camara van exactly? There's no doubt these vans are very much about generating money just like everything motor related in this country. Unfortunately people do get killed on the roads but I honestly think a lot of accidents are due to bad driving practices rather than speed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1417
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    mikedragon32 wrote: »
    If it IS a tax, then we should call it IDIOT tax...

    I've paid it twice. I was an idiot...

    It's a fine. If you speed you're disobeying the law. If you're caught, you get fined. Not taxed. End of.

    Considerign the amount of people that spout rubbish about the lotto being an idiot tax even though you have a shot at a return for your money, this seems like a fair idea.:)


  • Options
    #1418
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Ali Babba wrote: »
    Sorry for your troubles but where did I say it was a good idea to set fire to a camara van exactly? There's no doubt these vans are very much about generating money just like everything motor related in this country. Unfortunately people do get killed on the roads but I honestly think a lot of accidents are due to bad driving practices rather than speed.

    Bad driving at a slower speed should result in less damage so.


  • Options
    #1419
    Anan1
    Registered Users Posts: 22,818 ✭✭✭✭Anan1


    Ali Babba wrote: »
    There's no doubt these vans are very much about generating money..
    I'll say it again, slowly. They cost more money than they bring in.


  • Options
    #1420
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Anan1 wrote: »
    I'll say it again, slowly. They cost more money than they bring in.

    Well that's cos they're on all the dangerous back roads isn't it, while the Gardai still sits on HQDCs etc and make the real money off the high volume ;)


  • Options
    #1421
    testicle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,430 ✭✭✭testicle


    R0C wrote: »
    Could the camera van have detected the trailer and adjusted the speed limit which applied because of this, or is this a mistake?

    There's a man in the van, they do the detecting and adjusting.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1422
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    They are actually enforcing trailer limits and HGV limits ?????:eek:

    Fan-bloody-tastic!!!!
    Delighted to hear this!


  • Options
    #1423
    cpoh1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭cpoh1


    Anan1 wrote: »
    I'll say it again, slowly. They cost more money than they bring in.

    Any evidence to back up this claim?

    I find it highly unlikely that a private company tendered for this new system safe in the knowledge it would cost them money and not earn it. Same goes for the government.


  • Options
    #1424
    Gulliver
    Registered Users Posts: 1,026 ✭✭✭Gulliver


    What if you had borrowed someone else's trailer which had their number plate on it and the trailer/load obscured your own? (I know false representation of plates is illegal, but let's assume it was a mistake and I'm asking only in the context of the speed cameras). Is there any leeway to say that wasn't the trailer owner driving? Does the operator notice the trailer on the approach and take a picture of the front of the vehicle? If he didn't notice and it's going at 100kph or lower, why would he take a picture of the front? Do these things take photos of every vehicle and the operator decides which ones to keep in the event of a violation?

    So many questions....


  • Options
    #1425
    CiniO
    Registered Users Posts: 16,089 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    opinion guy wrote: »
    They are actually enforcing trailer limits and HGV limits ?????:eek:

    Fan-bloody-tastic!!!!
    Delighted to hear this!

    Fantastic?
    HGV limit is 80km/h.
    They have speed limiters fitted to 90km/h.
    Almost all over Europe HGV have the same limit (80km/h), but still almost all of them are travelling at limiter speed which is 90km/h.
    This is generally acceptable everywhere.

    Now in Ireland, every truck driver will have to slow down to about 75km/h, because he can't be sure, that if he'll stick to 80km/h he won't get a ticket for doing 81km/h.
    That's complete nonsense. The penalty is the same for speeding by 1km/h and for speeding by 40km/h. The most stupid thing i've seen anywhere.


  • Options
    #1426
    Jumpy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,606 ✭✭✭Jumpy


    CiniO wrote: »

    Now in Ireland, every truck driver will have to slow down to about 75km/h, because he can't be sure, that if he'll stick to 80km/h he won't get a ticket for doing 81km/h.

    OH GOD NO. Thats terrible.


    *sarcasm meter starts smoking*


  • Options
    #1427
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    I also seem to be getting stuck behind trucks overtaking each other with a 1km/h speed differential far more often than I used to. The joy of being stuck behind a truck doing ~80km/h for miles as it slowly slowly SLOWLY overtakes another.

    Nothing like it :)


  • Options
    #1428
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    CiniO wrote: »

    Now in Ireland, every truck driver will have to slow down to about 75km/h, because he can't be sure, that if he'll stick to 80km/h he won't get a ticket for doing 81km/h..

    If you can show any eveidence of even 1 person getting a ticket for 1km/h over any limit you might have a point. I doubt you'll be able to find evidence though.

    You could safely go an indicated 85 or so without issue and pretty much everyone knows this.


  • Options
    #1429
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    cpoh1 wrote: »
    Any evidence to back up this claim?

    I find it highly unlikely that a private company tendered for this new system safe in the knowledge it would cost them money and not earn it. Same goes for the government.

    no, no. It costs the state money. The company are paid a set amount by the state for providing the service and they clearly make money out of it or wouldn't be doing it.


  • Options
    #1430
    bazzachazza
    Registered Users Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭bazzachazza


    Considering the number of people caught each year speeding I wouldn't be surprised if both are making healthy profits.


  • Options
    #1431
    bazzachazza
    Registered Users Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭bazzachazza


    R0C wrote: »
    Photo just shows the number plate, wonder do they have a full photo taken that proves a trailer was being towed?

    Seems like a very grey area to me...

    There is no grey area. If they sent you the entire photo you would complain that you couldn't tell who was driving or that you couldn't see the reg to prove it was your vehicle due to the size of the photo sent to you. They instead just send you a photo of your reg. The photo sent to you is a cropped image of a much larger photo i.e. they cut it down to show you your reg number whereas the entire photo will probably show your entire vehicle with the trailer on a road with some lovely Donegal scenery behind you.

    The vans are operated by a human who knows the speed limits for each vehicle and for the road he is monitoring. He will check your speed and will have seen the trailer and known you were speeding.

    The number of drivers that overtake me on the M4 recently towing trailers above the posted motorway limit is ridiculous i.e far in excess of 120 km/h. Most of these trailers also are not showing a reg plate or if they are it doesn't match the one of the vehicle towing it. Also seen a idiot towing a trailer on an unlit road and the trailer had NO lights, reg plate or reflectors. It made it very difficult to see when there was cars coming the other way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1432
    cpoh1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭cpoh1


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    no, no. It costs the state money. The company are paid a set amount by the state for providing the service and they clearly make money out of it or wouldn't be doing it.

    Any evidence that it is costing the state money?

    I find it extremely hard to believe that the government are losing money on these speed cameras seeing as its only costing them a set fee to run them and they are recouping all the revenue from the fines. The paddies weekend alone netted them €400,000 based on 5,000 people being caught.


  • Options
    #1433
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,485 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    cpoh1 wrote: »
    Any evidence that it is costing the state money?

    I find it extremely hard to believe that the government are losing money on these speed cameras seeing as its only costing them a set fee to run them and they are recouping all the revenue from the fines. The paddies weekend alone netted them €400,000 based on 5,000 people being caught.

    As I said earlier in the thread, I reckon the private ones cost the state as they are supposed to be focused on dangerous back roads etc where volumes will be lower anyway but the revenue from Garda ones, who just camp on main roads, more than outstrips this.

    no proof either way though


  • Options
    #1434
    daveod1
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭daveod1


    I travel every day on the M50 from Dun Laoire and take the Cherrywood off ramp ( J16 I think ) ... have seen speed van on the stretch from the off ramp to the roundabout at Cheerywood and thought that everyone driving that road will be caught at some stage ( fish in barrel syndrome !! ) Lo and behold received last week in the post an € 80 fine + 2 penalty points for doing 68 in a 60 km zone !! The garda.ie website says that these van placements have been decided on the basis that " Garda have completed an extensive analysis of the collision history on the road network and roads have been identified where a significant proportion of collisions occurred " I have never seen even the liklihood of a collision on this link road -- indeed the biggest danger now would be that people slow down on seeing one of these vans and cause a pile up !! Anyone else caught on this road ??


  • Options
    #1435
    Vicxas
    Registered Users Posts: 15,298 ✭✭✭✭Vicxas


    Not caught yet, nearly got done today, luckily my car has good brakes :)


  • Options
    #1436
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,267 ✭✭✭markpb


    cpoh1 wrote: »
    Any evidence that it is costing the state money?

    I find it extremely hard to believe that the government are losing money on these speed cameras seeing as its only costing them a set fee to run them and they are recouping all the revenue from the fines. The paddies weekend alone netted them €400,000 based on 5,000 people being caught.

    From Garda.ie
    The costs of the project will be about €16m a year.


  • Options
    #1437
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    That's the shameful thing. How many Traffic Corps guards could we train up to be proper traffic police with €16million? That would have a far larger effect...affect? (brain fart) on road safety than GoSafe camera vans.


  • Options
    #1438
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users Posts: 8,953 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Tragedy wrote: »
    I also seem to be getting stuck behind trucks overtaking each other with a 1km/h speed differential far more often than I used to. The joy of being stuck behind a truck doing ~80km/h for miles as it slowly slowly SLOWLY overtakes another.

    Nothing like it :)

    HGV's and buses aren't allowed on the outside lane of motorways - it's a 1 penalty point offence, with an 80 euro fine. But of course, we all see it happening every day - yet another rule that is ignored and unenforced. Not sure about regular dual carriageways.


  • Options
    #1439
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    See above post :P


  • Options
    #1440
    cpoh1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭cpoh1


    markpb wrote: »
    From Garda.ie

    From that link Minister Aherne states:

    "While these costs will be offset by whatever revenue is generated from the project, the cameras are being introduced not to raise revenue but to stop speeding on our roads. I would expect that the network of safety cameras will be substantially rolled out by the middle of next year."

    I think its quite clear from this that the daft notion that the speed cameras are costing the state money can be dispelled. I would hazard a gues that the setup costs are covered a multiple amount of times by revenue generated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1441
    PyeContinental
    Registered Users Posts: 509 ✭✭✭PyeContinental


    I don't believe claims that this is a loss making exercise for the state, certainly not in the long term.

    Look at Dermot Ahern's expression when Noes Dempsy claims that he "hopes we don't actually get any fines". He literally cannot keep a straight face.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E8F_mL1nug
    Anan1 wrote: »
    I'll say it again, slowly. They cost more money than they bring in.
    I wonder could you say it 10% more slowly, but increase withering contempt and general obnoxiousness by 15 to 20% ? I think that may save lives.


Advertisement