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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1414244464774

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭BanzaiBk


    Just in the door checking the post. Fixed penalty notice - damn....but...I was measured going 44kph in a 60kph zone. If I just ring them tomorrow will they sort it out?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    BanzaiBk wrote: »
    Just in the door checking the post. Fixed penalty notice - damn....but...I was measured going 44kph in a 60kph zone. If I just ring them tomorrow will they sort it out?

    That was a fine for going too slow tut tut :p, Might be worth showing it to a Solitictor before contacting them incase you are giving them leeway to crucify you, eg. the might re-issue it showing you doing 66 in a 60 but if you didn't pay the fine and went to court with a fine for doing 44 in a 60 you'd probably win! Never them the opportunity to screw you twice!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭BanzaiBk


    Stinicker wrote: »
    That was a fine for going too slow tut tut :p, Might be worth showing it to a Solitictor before contacting them incase you are giving them leeway to crucify you, eg. the might re-issue it showing you doing 66 in a 60 but if you didn't pay the fine and went to court with a fine for doing 44 in a 60 you'd probably win! Never them the opportunity to screw you twice!

    Thanks I'll get on to the solicitor in the morning. The particular road it happened on is a series of bends and if it's the day I think it was it was quite wet so there's a chance I was only going 44kph. Very windy with heavy traffic, time of offence was 17.42pm.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭Oral Surgeon


    BanzaiBk wrote: »
    Thanks I'll get on to the solicitor in the morning. The particular road it happened on is a series of bends and if it's the day I think it was it was quite wet so there's a chance I was only going 44kph. Very windy with heavy traffic, time of offence was 17.42pm.

    I hope they throw the book at you, you maniac!!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    BanzaiBk wrote: »
    Just in the door checking the post. Fixed penalty notice - damn....but...I was measured going 44kph in a 60kph zone. If I just ring them tomorrow will they sort it out?

    You sure it wasn't a special 30km/h zone? There was a thread here a while back about that. I'd be absolutely certain its a 60 zone before proceeding legally.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭BanzaiBk


    ironclaw wrote: »
    You sure it wasn't a special 30km/h zone? There was a thread here a while back about that. I'd be absolutely certain its a 60 zone before proceeding legally.

    It's a 60 alright, the solicitor confirmed it with someone/something. I was afraid it was a 50kph section or a 30kph zone but it's not. He'll contact me again on Monday to discuss it further.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    ironclaw wrote: »
    You sure it wasn't a special 30km/h zone? There was a thread here a while back about that. I'd be absolutely certain its a 60 zone before proceeding legally.

    There certainly was a post about that some time ago, I think in this thread but I can't remember when. The reason the poster was fined was, apparently, that they had put up a temporary 30k speed limit in the place where the Gatso van was, while the rest of the road was a 60k limit. It was outside Waterford as far as I recall.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,473 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    they had put up a temporary 30k speed limit
    Did it have a proper order giving the limit legal force?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭ART6


    Did it have a proper order giving the limit legal force?

    No idea! I only read the post at the time, but I have to say I am increasingly cynical about things our public bodies do to wring a few more euros out of pockets.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 893 ✭✭✭I.S.T.


    This a good start, but can we estimate the cost of operating the cameras - Vans, cameras, insurance, staff salaries?

    Any net profit, of course, then goes towarsds funding emergency services.
    -Chris- wrote: »
    Does it? I hadn't heard that.

    Any link?

    Have you found a link to back this up yet cyclopath?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,957 ✭✭✭Hooch


    Have you found a link to back this up yet cyclopath?

    There will be no link..........








    *I'm sure no one expected there to be!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Have you found a link to back this up yet cyclopath?
    It's really great that you've become interested in the novel concept of facts being used to back up statements. previously, your stance has been to make statements and then assert that they're correct unless someone could prove you wrong. Well done.

    I'm looking forward to seeing your figures for the net revenue generated by speed cameras.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Have you found a link to back this up yet cyclopath?
    It's really great that you've become interested in the novel concept of facts being used to back up statements. previously, you stance has been to make statements and then assert that they're correct unless someone could prove you wrong. Well done.

    I'm looking forward to seeing your figures for the net revenue generated by speed cameras.

    And what was your reason for not replying to me when I asked it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    -Chris- wrote: »
    And what was your reason for not replying to me when I asked it?
    It's generally obvious that revenue from fines goes to the exchequer and that public services are funded by the exchequer.

    Have you ever asked IrishSpeedTraps to back up his claims?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    There's a far cry from this:
    Any net profit, of course, then goes towarsds funding emergency services.

    to this:
    It's generally obvious that revenue from fines goes to the exchequer and that public services are funded by the exchequer.

    imho...

    Yes, you are correct from a pedantic point of view, I was just interested in whether you had heard it as a specific initiative or not.

    Have you ever asked IrishSpeedTraps to back up his claims?

    If I ever ask him a question and he ignores it, I'll be sure to follow it up just as this question has been followed up.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    -Chris- wrote: »
    If I ever ask him a question and he ignores it, I'll be sure to follow it up just as this question has been followed up.
    Have you ever asked him to back up his claims about speed traps and them being 'income generators'? It's a very important topic and it would be really great if you could persuade him to back up his statements.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Have you ever asked him to back up his claims about speed traps and them being 'income generators'? It's a very important topic and it would be really great if you could persuade him to back up his statements.

    It's generally obvious that they generate income for the exchequer by issuing fines that are then paid by drivers.

    What, specifically, is the issue you're trying to address?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    -Chris- wrote: »
    It's generally obvious that they generate income for the exchequer by issuing fines that are then paid by drivers. What, specifically, is the issue you're trying to address?
    He stated they are revenue generators but he's not supplied any evidence that the income from fines exceeds the costs of operation.

    If there is no net revenue, then it's wrong to say that the government operates speed cameras to make money.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    IHe stated they are revenue generators but he's not supplied any evidence that the income from fines exceeds the costs of operation.

    If there is no net revenue, then it's wrong to say that the government operates speed cameras to make money.

    I think the distinction being made when many posters refer to speed cameras as "revenue generators" is questioning whether the motivation behind them is in order to make a profit from the fines, or to encourage safety even if they run at a loss.

    I've never felt it was an issue, because I don't think it matters. Even if the cameras were run at a profit, those who believe they're safety-motivated aren't in any way likely to change their minds (and vice versa imho).

    That's why I've never questioned anyone, Irishspeedtraps or otherwise, on referring to them as "revenue generators".
    I'm more interested in whether people see them in places that are positioned to enhance safety or to "shoot fish in a barrel". That's a far better indicator of what the motivation for their operation is.

    My €0.02


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,479 ✭✭✭Comic Book Guy


    Hi All,

    Quick question about our favourite vans!!

    Whats the story with the vans being in a location not marked by a warning sign or marked on the garda.ie location map?
    Are you still liable to get a fine and 2 points if caught?

    I know that ya probably are since speeding is speeding but just wanted yer opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Garda vans or the Spectra vans?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,479 ✭✭✭Comic Book Guy


    The "10 KY" Reg ones.

    It was the guy in front of me that got done with it this morning, i was just lucky this time :cool:.

    Checked the map on garda.ie and it was about 5 miles away from the nearest marked potential location for one of them so was wondering what the story was.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭Oral Surgeon


    The "10 KY" Reg ones.

    It was the guy in front of me that got done with it this morning, i was just lucky this time :cool:.

    Checked the map on garda.ie and it was about 5 miles away from the nearest marked potential location for one of them so was wondering what the story was.

    This is not on atall. Go to court and tell the Judge that you were clearly in the speeding is allowed zone and that the cameras had no business being there to catch your unlawful speeding...:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    -Chris- wrote: »
    I'm more interested in whether people see them in places that are positioned to enhance safety or to "shoot fish in a barrel". That's a far better indicator of what the motivation for their operation is.
    They're placed at locations where people deliberately break the law.

    Let's get real: All this stuff about 'revenue raising'(without any evidence a net profit), and 'put them on the dangerous corners in the back roads' is just a smokescreen from people who want to break the law without being caught.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    They're placed at locations where people deliberately break the law.

    Yes, and if you're not speeding then you won't get caught by them. That's blindingly obvious and has been covered many, many times already in this thread.

    Let's get real: All this stuff about 'revenue raising'(without any evidence a net profit), and 'put them on the dangerous corners in the back roads' is just a smokescreen from people who want to break the law without being caught.

    You do know that revenue and profit are completely separate things, don't you? If it's creating an income then it's a revenue generator. Getting wound up by the use of this term is an exercise in futility.

    I'm not getting caught up in the circular argument about the positioning of the cameras with you, you have your beliefs and I have mine, and I don't think either of the two of us will change our stance.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭BanzaiBk


    Happy days! Sorted it out with the solicitor, 4 fines letters sent out in the post with incorrect information from 1 van. Happened on the back road between Rochestown and Monkstown in Cork, I'd call the area in question Ballymot.


  • Registered Users Posts: 893 ✭✭✭I.S.T.


    Nice diversion cyclopath, so can we take it that there is no link, and that your claim is just a figment of your imagination?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Nice diversion cyclopath, so can we take it that there is no link, and that your claim is just a figment of your imagination?
    Its quite obvious what happens to the fines.

    Now, please give details of net profit from speed cameras and back up your claims.

    Unlike how the fines are spent, this is very important matter relevant to the topic and your claims.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Its quite obvious what happens to the fines.

    Now, please give details of net profit from speed cameras and back up your claims.

    Unlike how the fines are spent, this is very important matter relevant to the topic and your claims.

    I've just done a search in this thread for the word Profit and posts by Irishspeedtraps. No results.

    Can you link to where it was stated that these cameras are profitable?

    Also, can you define the claim? Is the issue that they're profitable or that they're raising revenue?


  • Registered Users Posts: 893 ✭✭✭I.S.T.


    Its quite obvious what happens to the fines.

    So you have no source. We'll leave it there then.
    Now, please give details of net profit from speed cameras and back up your claims.

    Unlike how the fines are spent, this is very important matter relevant to the topic and your claims.

    Which specific claim are you referring to? It doesn't matter anyway, I can just follow your example and respond by saying "It's quite obvious that [insert claim here]".


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    -Chris- wrote: »
    I've just done a search in this thread for the word Profit and posts by Irishspeedtraps. No results.

    Can you link to where it was stated that these cameras are profitable?

    Also, can you define the claim? Is the issue that they're profitable or that they're raising revenue?




    Let's not get bogged down in semantics.

    I think it's pretty clear where Irishspeedtraps (dot com) stands on this general issue.

    I am against speed cameras being used to raise any revenue. The speeding fine should be abolished and just penalty points given for speeding offenses. This will remove any doubt in motorists minds that they are just there to make money.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Let's not get bogged down in semantics.

    I think it's pretty clear where Irishspeedtraps (dot com) stands on this general issue.

    But this is a common thread throughout this discussion - one camp of people believe the cameras are primarily safety motivated, the other believes they are being used as an additional tax on the motorist.
    There are many posters taking a stance on either side of the argument, but for some reason, only one poster is getting singled-out at the moment.

    If they're safety related and successful, that'll be borne out by the road death statistics.
    If they're an additional tax, odds are that'll be demonstrable based on where they're positioned and whether they're operating in the spirit of being visible deterrents as they were originally planned, or not.

    To turn on a poster who believes they're being used for revenue more than safety, and to ask him to prove the cameras are being run at a profit (which, again, isn't the same thing as revenue) seems to be a deliberate misinterpretation of what the poster has said.

    Hopefully Irishspeedtraps can clarify whether he meant revenue or profit, or hopefully Cyclopath2001 can quote a post where Irishspeedtraps said profit rather than revenue.

    Maybe then we can move on...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,025 ✭✭✭✭-Corkie-


    This thread is going round in circles so lets brighten it up.....

    189359_10150255720760671_588465670_8161883_4209319_n.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    -Chris- wrote: »
    But this is a common thread throughout this discussion - one camp of people believe the cameras are primarily safety motivated, the other believes they are being used as an additional tax on the motorist.

    If they're safety related and successful, that'll be borne out by the road death statistics.

    If they're an additional tax, odds are that'll be demonstrable based on where they're positioned and whether they're operating in the spirit of being visible deterrents as they were originally planned, or not.



    If there are two camps as you suggest, then IMO one knows that there is good evidence internationally demonstrating the effectiveness of both overt and covert speed surveillance, whereas the other "camp" tends to ignore, misrepresent or play down such evidence, preferring instead to engage in rhetoric about stealth taxes and fish in barrels.

    It is possible that 2011 will be the best year on record for road deaths, though it remains to be seen whether this will actually be the case. Rather than welcome such progress, it seems the speed camera (and anti-RSA) sceptics want to attribute gradually reducing road deaths to everything else but speed enforcement.

    The hypothesis that speed cameras reduce road deaths is a testable one, and research has repeatedly shown that to be the case.

    The stealth tax notion is barely a hypothesis, and is probably not a testable one in any event. For the stealth tax 'theory' to be valid even as conjecture, there would need to be no reduction at all in road deaths, no plausible explanation as to why speed cameras might reduce road deaths, and no prior evidence that speed cameras are effective at reducing road deaths.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    -Chris- wrote: »
    Hopefully Irishspeedtraps can clarify whether he meant revenue or profit, or hopefully Cyclopath2001 can quote a post where Irishspeedtraps said profit rather than revenue.
    Maybe other posters can say what they believed IrishSpeedTraps meant.

    A reasonable interpretation would be 'Money Making', a term used in a press release over on IrishSpeedTraps.com.

    To make money, you take in more than you spend.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    "The fact is, the contract is for hours worked and bears no relationship to how many fines are issued. During the debates about the introduction of cameras, of which I was a part, there were calls within government to ensure the cameras were self-financing, but we strongly argued against it. The argument that clinched it was the work done by Peter Bacon on the economic cost of a road death. He estimated that it cost the economy about €3 million, while each speed fine netted about €80 to the State . . . If a speed camera prevents one death happening, its economic benefit is greater than 37,500 speeding fines, so the Government savings are made through saving lives, not speeding fines." (Conor Faughnan, Irish Times, 16th April 2011)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    If there are two camps as you suggest, then IMO one knows that there is good evidence internationally demonstrating the effectiveness of both overt and covert speed surveillance, whereas the other "camp" tends to ignore, misrepresent or play down such evidence, preferring instead to engage in rhetoric about stealth taxes and fish in barrels.

    Aren't you the poster who constantly insists on people providing evidence to back up their assertions, when they provide said evidence, you ignore it and refuse to debate it?

    And of course, your 'camp' is the correct, logical and knowledgable one and you aren't just as guilty as head in the sand LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT CONTRAVENES MY DEEPLY HELD BELIEFS nonsense that the other 'camp' engages in.

    Of course not.

    Just as Irishspeedtraps conveniently ignores awkward facts that go against some of his opinions/beliefs, so do you and cyclopath. More so than (s)he does in my reading of this forum.

    It's getting pretty fécking tiresome too, and I wish the three of you just would just go and get yourself banned.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭Oral Surgeon


    Maybe other posters can say what they believed IrishSpeedTraps meant.

    Mmmmm, I believe that no-one here really gives a crap about this anymore. Have your little fight by PM and spare the rest of us....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Mmmmm, I believe that no-one here really gives a crap about this anymore.
    All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Tragedy wrote: »
    Aren't you the poster who constantly insists on people providing evidence to back up their assertions, when they provide said evidence, you ignore it and refuse to debate it?

    And of course, your 'camp' is the correct, logical and knowledgable one and you aren't just as guilty as head in the sand LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT CONTRAVENES MY DEEPLY HELD BELIEFS nonsense that the other 'camp' engages in.

    Of course not.

    Just as Irishspeedtraps conveniently ignores awkward facts that go against some of his opinions/beliefs, so do you and cyclopath. More so than (s)he does in my reading of this forum.

    It's getting pretty fécking tiresome too, and I wish the three of you just would just go and get yourself banned.

    Attack the post, not the poster please


    Maybe other posters can say what they believed IrishSpeedTraps meant.

    That's open to misinterpretation, and therefore the reason that I asked for you to provide quotes to back up your opinion, or for Irishspeedtraps to clarify their position.

    A reasonable interpretation would be 'Money Making', a term used in a press release over on IrishSpeedTraps.com.

    To make money, you take in more than you spend.

    I don't know or care what Irishspeedtraps (or other posters) post on other websites, our debate is happening on boards.ie.
    We don't allow Irishspeedtraps (or any other business) to direct people to their website for further information, I'd prefer if you didn't either.


    All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent.

    And all that's needed for a forum or thread to die, is for enough bad posters to soapbox and badger the other contributors into apathy.

    Again, please stop attacking one particular poster. Final warning.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭Wolverine_1999


    I'll just enlighten the mood here..

    Speed Cameras SUCK!

    There is not a day goes by that ANY driver can say to you that they did NOT break the speed limit. (Whether it is 55 in a 50 zone or 105 in a 100 zone).

    These new cameras will penalise you for this. I never understand then why people do 60 in a 50 zone.. you might as well do 80, you'll still get the same fine :rolleyes:

    And yes, there have been countless reports in this thread where people get fined for these measly differences (I have also seen them in the flesh..). There's my proof :p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,473 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    -Corkie- wrote: »
    This thread is going round in circles so lets brighten it up.....

    189359_10150255720760671_588465670_8161883_4209319_n.jpg
    Snopes.com says this is fake.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Tragedy wrote: »
    Aren't you the poster who constantly insists on people providing evidence to back up their assertions, when they provide said evidence, you ignore it and refuse to debate it?

    And of course, your 'camp' is the correct, logical and knowledgable one and you aren't just as guilty as head in the sand LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT CONTRAVENES MY DEEPLY HELD BELIEFS nonsense that the other 'camp' engages in.

    Of course not.

    Just as Irishspeedtraps conveniently ignores awkward facts that go against some of his opinions/beliefs, so do you and cyclopath. More so than (s)he does in my reading of this forum.

    It's getting pretty fécking tiresome too, and I wish the three of you just would just go and get yourself banned.



    Evidence is what counts, not beliefs.

    This is what informs my opinions, so attack the available evidence, rather than just wishing that people presenting these arguments would go away.

    Here are three papers just waiting for you to refute their findings.

    Wilson 2010 - Speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004607/frame.html

    Pilkington 2005 - Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: systematic review. British Medical Journal. 2005;330:331-334.
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/330/7487/331

    Elvik 2004 - Speed, speed cameras and road safety evaluation research: a presentation given to the Royal Statistical Society.
    http://membership.rss.org.uk/rssadmin/uploads/3952_Rune%20Elvik%20paper.pdf


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 910 ✭✭✭Joe 90


    Snopes.com says this is fake.
    Obviously fake, the Sidewinder is a heat seeker.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    I'll just enlighten the mood here..

    Speed Cameras SUCK!

    There is not a day goes by that ANY driver can say to you that they did NOT break the speed limit. (Whether it is 55 in a 50 zone or 105 in a 100 zone).

    These new cameras will penalise you for this. I never understand then why people do 60 in a 50 zone.. you might as well do 80, you'll still get the same fine :rolleyes:

    And yes, there have been countless reports in this thread where people get fined for these measly differences (I have also seen them in the flesh..). There's my proof :p




    Speed+cmaeras+in+disguise.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    -Chris- wrote: »
    Attack the post, not the poster please....I asked for you to provide quotes to back up your opinion, or for Irishspeedtraps to clarify their position....I don't know or care what Irishspeedtraps (or other posters) post on other websites, our debate is happening on boards.ie.
    I think this clarifies the meaning.

    I'm still waiing to see evidence that this is the case.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,035 ✭✭✭✭-Chris-


    Cheers for digging that up. Hopefully Irishspeedtraps will clarify/back-up his position.


  • Registered Users Posts: 893 ✭✭✭I.S.T.


    I think this clarifies the meaning.

    I'm still waiing to see evidence that this is the case.

    I am stating an opinion, a personal opinion does not require evidence. However I have asked for the data on the detection and accident rate, and revenue raised from each speed camera locations from the Gardai, but they won't release it. Why are they hiding the information? It leads me to that conclusion that at least some of the camera locations are motivated by profit, rather than road safety. However without the data from the Gardai, I cannot prove this as you point out.

    On the other hand your claim that any excess funds raised from speeding fines goes back into funding emergency services is being stated by you as a fact, therefore should be backed up. In fact I am not trying to trip you up by asking about this, I am genuinely interested and it is an important point. It could even change some people's negative view of speed traps into a positive one, so why won't you tell us where you heard this fact? I am not the only one to ask, a mod also asked you where you got this information. So tell us, did it come from an official source, or is it merely an assumption of yours?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Are those small speed limit signs legal? They are around the size of a dinner plate? Why are they used instead of the regular speed signs? You see them on roads which are patrolled by speed cameras. Seems very cynical to me.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    They are indeed, for repeater signs only; i.e. you should have already passed a larger sign before you start seeing the smaller ones.
    See Table 5.9 in Ch. 5 of the 2010 Traffic Signs Manual


  • Advertisement
Advertisement