Gardai operating 'gotcha' speed traps.

HurtLocker · 08-08-2013 11:55am

zenno wrote: »

Ye can't win either way.

I fecking hate the idea of getting fined for going over the speed limit and luckily i haven't got a speeding ticket ever in the 6 years of driving as i always stick to the limit.

But in saying this, i have had cars/vans small trucks tailgate me very close behind and beep me like crazy because of this and they overtake me erratically and look at me shouting and swearing while they are not looking at the road in front of them and this is dangerous in a big way. It doesn't bother me too much though but what they are doing is very dangerous.

What i am saying is that the RSA think that having folks driving at a certain speed limit (of which would be too slow for a certain road) will cut down on accident's, but in reality it is causing accidents from people that go nuts with you when you stick to the speed limit, and there are many dangerous sh!ts out there.

One of the first lessons I was taught was never be first in a convoy and preferable not last. Unless its a gatso van which are very rare for me and I know the roads they are on, it'll be a machine operated manually by the guards. It's the person in front who gets the fine. Many people like me

have no problem driving behind a speeder.

hoodwinked · 08-08-2013 12:07pm

Almaviva wrote: »

Where does such warped thinking come from

its completely about revenue, a few weeks back we were coming to Cork from killarney, there was a Gaa match on between the two counties in Killarney so we left about 20 minutes before it ended to avoid traffic,

on the way back to cork we passed one speed van parked in killarney, one heading in the killarney direction, and another speed van just parking up by farran, on the main route match traffic would be taking

you tell me that was not a revenue collection where they knew a high volume of traffic was going to be.

Red Nissan · 08-08-2013 12:09pm

HurtLocker wrote: »

One of the first lessons I was taught was never be first in a convoy and preferable not last. Unless its a gatso van which are very rare for me and I know the roads they are on, it'll be a machine operated manually by the guards. It's the person in front who gets the fine. Many people like me have no problem driving behind a speeder.

Good tip, I go so far as to pull over, as IMO too many fellow motorist know this trick and it leads to stupidly massive tail-gating. I even had three cars pull over with me one day, so blindly were they following me.

shane9689 · 08-08-2013 12:11pm

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

The guards are there to enforce the law...The speed limit is the law, going over it is against the law, so they are doing their job's...now I do agree that the speed limits are too low in places, but that's to combat the army of terrible drivers we have on the roads, from my experience on the road, at least 25% of people who drive should never be let near a road...

thats what the driving test is for then, if there are unsafe drivers then that means the test and the way its setup is flawed, making the speed limits flawed too isnt really the best solution

stevedublin · 08-08-2013 12:15pm

shane9689 wrote: »

thats what the driving test is for then, if there are unsafe drivers then that means the test and the way its setup is flawed, making the speed limits flawed too isnt really the best solution

The driving test can only monitor how well people drive when they are taking the test. Once drivers pass it, the driving test cannot monitor how they drive afterwards.

ScumLord · 08-08-2013 12:24pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What does the bit in red imply then?

What I said.

That's not going to happen until you're closer to or well past 100kph.

You say.

So it's uniformly "safe" up to 100 km/h and then it's suddenly not safe?

You've read one thing and assumed another.

HurtLocker · 08-08-2013 12:26pm

hoodwinked wrote: »

its completely about revenue, a few weeks back we were coming to Cork from killarney, there was a Gaa match on between the two counties in Killarney so we left about 20 minutes before it ended to avoid traffic,

on the way back to cork we passed one speed van parked in killarney, one heading in the killarney direction, and another speed van just parking up by farran, on the main route match traffic would be taking

you tell me that was not a revenue collection where they knew a high volume of traffic was going to be.

The company who runs them are in loss and they've less than 2 years left on their contract expect way more of this.

EdCastle · 08-08-2013 12:38pm

And so the long and short of it all is...

If your a law abiding citizen, pay attention and obey the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about.

On the other hand If you go around breaking the speed limits, (ie break the law), then you will eventually be caught out and pay the price.....I have absolutely no problem with that. I go to the effort of obeying the speed limits then other road users should also, the speed limits aren't there for a laugh, they are there to protect road users and pedestrians.

If it is all about revenue....even better! People who break the law should be made pay debts back to society....the more the better IMO.

Iwannahurl · 08-08-2013 1:20pm

ScumLord wrote: »

It's pretty difficult to do an unsafe speed at that junction in traffic. Bar being around pedestrians unsafe would mean the car is at it's limits and can no longer do what you ask it to do. That's not going to happen until you're closer to or well past 100kph.

Question from me (regarding the issue of "safe" driving): what does that imply?

'Answer' from you:'

ScumLord wrote: »

What I said.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o8mYE8YOj7Y/UB7Gonf1shI/AAAAAAAACIc/hfzprMaZnrw/s1600/calling-bull****.gif

ScumLord · 08-08-2013 1:45pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Question from me (regarding the issue of "safe" driving): what does that imply?

It doesn't imply anything, it means what it says. An unsafe speed would be one where you can't control the car anymore. Breaking a speed limit doesn't automatically mean the car has become unsafe.

wil · 08-08-2013 1:58pm

EdCastle wrote: »

And so the long and short of it all is...

If your a law abiding citizen, pay attention and obey the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about.

On the other hand If you go around breaking the speed limits, (ie break the law), then you will eventually be caught out and pay the price.....I have absolutely no problem with that. I go to the effort of obeying the speed limits then other road users should also, the speed limits aren't there for a laugh, they are there to protect road users and pedestrians.

If it is all about revenue....even better! People who break the law should be made pay debts back to society....the more the better IMO.

I agree with what you say in principle, but it's far more complicated. I am going to apparently contradict myself at many points because that is how it is, one single rule cant apply to every different situation. that is the problem with speed limits as applied to so many types of roads with so many varying circumstances and conditions.
I don't advocate breaking limits but I do advocate changing those limits where they are just wrong and there just for planning or revenue with little consideration towards safety and traffic.
Who sets these limits - road engineers, planning / council lobbyists, many are long connected to easy rezoning.
They should be set by safety engineers and them alone.

Some of the worst drivers on our roads are those who think they are safe just because the don't break speed limits. Yet they break almost every other rule of the road with impunity, and never even get a warning for it. But they are the first to blame speeding. They'd reverse over you with a smile and a wave of their phone.

That is what I have the biggest problem with, blinkered blanket blaming of "speeding" for all the woes on our roads. It is the goto scapegoat of the uneducated and ignorant and it frightens their horses.

Put relative speed,, inappropriate speed and excess speed in to the sentence and you show you have some understanding of the subject.
That's why I tend to put "speeding" in quotes as it's become a meaningless tautology.
Pay as much attention to the other equally important rules of the road and then issues with excess speed become more apparent and more easily addressed.
If people could stick to their own side of the road, accidents could be halved overnight.
Change attitudes to self policing of your own driving and responsibility for you own driving and you positively reinforce good driving behaviour for generations to come.

EyeSight · 08-08-2013 2:02pm

EdCastle wrote: »

And so the long and short of it all is...

If your a law abiding citizen, pay attention and obey the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about.

On the other hand If you go around breaking the speed limits, (ie break the law), then you will eventually be caught out and pay the price.....I have absolutely no problem with that. I go to the effort of obeying the speed limits then other road users should also, the speed limits aren't there for a laugh, they are there to protect road users and pedestrians.

If it is all about revenue....even better! People who break the law should be made pay debts back to society....the more the better IMO.

I would much rather the guards focus on catching drug dealers and burglars. You cannot deny that the focus of them is more on the revenue generating traffic violations.
I still think the roads need policing, but i am very unhappy with how we focus the resources

Ray Palmer · 08-08-2013 2:02pm

hoodwinked wrote: »

its completely about revenue, a few weeks back we were coming to Cork from killarney, there was a Gaa match on between the two counties in Killarney so we left about 20 minutes before it ended to avoid traffic,

on the way back to cork we passed one speed van parked in killarney, one heading in the killarney direction, and another speed van just parking up by farran, on the main route match traffic would be taking

you tell me that was not a revenue collection where they knew a high volume of traffic was going to be.

Or maybe to keep a large number of people safe! If there is masses of traffic speeding then the risk is higher of an accident. :eek:

Easy way to avoid such fines. Stick to the speed limit

hoodwinked · 08-08-2013 2:08pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Or maybe to keep a large number of people safe! If there is masses of traffic speeding then the risk is higher of an accident. :eek:

Easy way to avoid such fines. Stick to the speed limit

if it was about safety there would have been Gardaí there as opposed to speed vans parked up, they were clearly targeting an event where they knew they would have a greater chance to catch out motorists, 3 vans was over the top,

its easy to say "stick to the speed limit, avoid fines" but as someone who does stick to the limit, i am still disgusted at this blatant attempt to make some money by targeting specific places at specific times,

Valetta · 08-08-2013 2:18pm

hoodwinked wrote: »

if it was about safety there would have been Gardaí there as opposed to speed vans parked up, they were clearly targeting an event where they knew they would have a greater chance to catch out motorists, 3 vans was over the top,

its easy to say "stick to the speed limit, avoid fines" but as someone who does stick to the limit, i am still disgusted at this blatant attempt to make some money by targeting specific places at specific times,

Are they not targeting specific drivers, rather thatn an event or places?

Ray Palmer · 08-08-2013 2:35pm

hoodwinked wrote: »

if it was about safety there would have been Gardaí there as opposed to speed vans parked up, they were clearly targeting an event where they knew they would have a greater chance to catch out motorists, 3 vans was over the top,

its easy to say "stick to the speed limit, avoid fines" but as someone who does stick to the limit, i am still disgusted at this blatant attempt to make some money by targeting specific places at specific times,

A speed van does deter people from speeding so why would they need more guards to get the message across?

Targeting places at specific times makes complete sense. How else do you think they should do it? Yes targeting the most people who are speeding. Anybody who speeds speeds everywhere they are just getting caught at easier points.

I doubt anybody who gets a speeding fine just happens to have been speeding that one time in that one place. After the first fine they very may well slow down everywhere. Fear of being caught remains the biggest deterrent to offenses and will always remain that way due to human nature.

wil · 08-08-2013 2:39pm

HurtLocker wrote: »

One of the first lessons I was taught was never be first in a convoy and preferable not last. Unless its a gatso van which are very rare for me and I know the roads they are on, it'll be a machine operated manually by the guards. It's the person in front who gets the fine. Many people like me have no problem driving behind a speeder.

I know what you are saying but if this was the focus from your instructor early in your lessons, it shows exactly how bad the instructors used to be before they became regulated.:o

Anyway I wouldn't rely on that strategy. A UK constable told me some of them like to play snooker. First get a red then a colour. Kills the boredom of traffic duty I suppose.
Also said speeding tickets have the easiest paperwork so that's a big reason for issuing them. Freely admitted most of the cameras were just for revenue. In fact over the last few years many cameras are being switched off as they didn't seem to be having the desired effect. So as I said, it is far more complicated than the simplistic view of "speeding"

Spook_ie · 08-08-2013 2:45pm

Jimoslimos wrote: »

While that may be the idea it doesn't make it safer, as absurd as it might sound it is often safer to increase speed briefly to safely move into a gap rather than letting traffic undertake and then cut across on the left. Accidents occur not due to excessive speed but rather traffic travelling in close proximity and lane changing. Lower speed limits cause a concertina effect where traffic bunches up.

Failing a complete redesign of the junction, a safer (but expensive) solution would be to have lights between the two roundabouts allowing traffic from both the airport and N1/Coachman's Inn time to get in lane. But as always safety isn't the primary concern, revenue instead is.

And as absurd as it might sound, you can actually slow down to merge and help people merge, the limit is 60Kph to account for traffic manoeuvrings over a short distance that might entail crossing from lane 1 to lane 3 and vice versa, it's bad enough with people undertaking without having to account for idiots wanting to do a 100 coming up to a traffic light controlled RAB

onslow_murphy · 08-08-2013 2:53pm

got done at the weekend , told the guard we don't all have haddington road agreements to protect our salaries - pensions and that he was busy collecting for a hungary government , my 80 euro doesn't come free , they should expect a little lip

Valetta · 08-08-2013 2:58pm

onslow_murphy wrote: »

got done at the weekend , told the guard we don't all have haddington road agreements to protect our salaries - pensions and that he was busy collecting for a hungary government , my 80 euro doesn't come free , they should expect a little lip

Well done you.

Every little helps in our fight against..... what exactly? :rolleyes:

hoodwinked · 08-08-2013 2:58pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A speed van does deter people from speeding so why would they need more guards to get the message across?

Targeting places at specific times makes complete sense. How else do you think they should do it? Yes targeting the most people who are speeding. Anybody who speeds speeds everywhere they are just getting caught at easier points.

I doubt anybody who gets a speeding fine just happens to have been speeding that one time in that one place. After the first fine they very may well slow down everywhere. Fear of being caught remains the biggest deterrent to offenses and will always remain that way due to human nature.

i meant if it was for safety reasons the vans were there, surely having gardai on hand would have been a better option if it was road safety and crashes they were worried about?

i don't think its fair to target one steady stream of traffic no, i would rather those vans were parked in well known accident blackspots where speed is actually a killer than this "ooo higher volumes of traffic, i know its a safe part of the road but lets go for it"

truth is it has become a money making racket and i for one would rather see these vans slowing down the maniacs flying past me on narrow country roads than on a wide main road with an overtaking lane,

maniac2000 · 08-08-2013 3:03pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you elaborate a bit on your logic there? Was your speed over the limit, and how do you know it was a "safe speed"?

The speed limit is 60 on that particular stretch.. Frequented by Gardai a lot over the years and I think it is listed as a speed check zone on the Garda website.... I could be mistaken tho

Iwannahurl · 08-08-2013 3:04pm

ScumLord wrote: »

It doesn't imply anything, it means what it says. An unsafe speed would be one where you can't control the car anymore. Breaking a speed limit doesn't automatically mean the car has become unsafe.

So according to your understanding of the relationship between speed and road safety, driving faster than the posted speed limit only becomes less safe at the point where drivers can no longer control their car?

Am I reading you correctly on that point?

If so, are you saying that driving faster than the speed limit is inherently no less safe than driving at or below the speed limit, unless and until you reach a speed at which you can no longer control your vehicle?

Ray Palmer · 08-08-2013 3:08pm

hoodwinked wrote: »

i meant if it was for safety reasons the vans were there, surely having gardai on hand would have been a better option if it was road safety and crashes they were worried about?

i don't think its fair to target one steady stream of traffic no, i would rather those vans were parked in well known accident blackspots where speed is actually a killer than this "ooo higher volumes of traffic, i know its a safe part of the road but lets go for it"

truth is it has become a money making racket and i for one would rather see these vans slowing down the maniacs flying past me on narrow country roads than on a wide main road with an overtaking lane,

You don't get it do you?
Speed the biggest killer on the road. Speed van slows people. Extra guards wouldn't do it but the van does. Speed checking easier and quicker in the van.So no more guards would not be more effective.

What has fair got to do with it speeding is dangerous, more cars speeding in a steady line of traffic more dangerous.

If you claim speeding is a money making scam prove it with figures. They say the same thing in the UK and it doesn't generate money but cost money. I would say the same is probably true here.

hoodwinked · 08-08-2013 3:11pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What has fair got to do with it speeding is dangerous, more cars speeding in a steady line of traffic more dangerous.

i disagree, i would say a car speeding down a narrow country road is more dangerous, in a steady line of traffic its more to do with keeping a safe distance behind the car in front so should they slam on their brakes you too have a sufficient breaking distance, while speeding on a narrow country road you have a greater risk of blind corners and oncoming traffic unable to move to avoid you,

Iwannahurl · 08-08-2013 3:16pm

wil wrote: »

That is what I have the biggest problem with, blinkered blanket blaming of "speeding" for all the woes on our roads. It is the goto scapegoat of the uneducated and ignorant and it frightens their horses

I guess we're being invited to conclude that you're numbered among the ranks of the educated and the wise on this subject.

Why therefore am I still waiting for you to enlighten me with regard to some simple questions?

wil wrote: »

statistics from the world authorities on the subject.

wil wrote: »

Having learned and driven on the most consistently safe roads in the world, I place more faith in their generations of much researched stats, and funnily enough they also don't place so much uninformed emphasis on speed as the cause of accidents.

What statistics? Which world authorities?

In what country or countries do they not "place so much uninformed emphasis on speed as the cause of accidents"?

ScumLord · 08-08-2013 3:20pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So according to your understanding of the relationship between speed and road safety, driving faster than the posted speed limit only becomes less safe at the point where drivers can no longer control their car?

Am I reading you correctly on that point?

If so, are you saying that driving faster than the speed limit is inherently no less safe than driving at or below the speed limit, unless and until you reach a speed at which you can no longer control your vehicle?

We were talking specifically about a low speed limit of 50 - 60klm. Breaking those speed limits isn't going to make your car unsafe (bar in a pedestrian area), I added that you'd need to be up near 100klm or even more (it all depends, there is no arbitrary speed at which ever car becomes unstable) before you could say your car is even becoming unsafe.

Modern cars with traction control, ABS and the likes makes cars very safe at low speeds going just over the speed limit means you're breaking the law not driving dangerously.

Iwannahurl · 08-08-2013 3:34pm

ScumLord wrote: »

We were talking specifically about a low speed limit of 50 - 60klm. Breaking those speed limits isn't going to make your car unsafe (bar in a pedestrian area), I added that you'd need to be up near 100klm or even more (it all depends, there is no arbitrary speed at which ever car becomes unstable) before you could say your car is even becoming unsafe.

Modern cars with traction control, ABS and the likes makes cars very safe at low speeds going just over the speed limit means you're breaking the law not driving dangerously.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why rigorous and persistent enforcement is needed.

It is utterly pointless trying to educate the generality of motorists about the concept of relative risk with regard to speed, so I say just cut to the chase and hammer speed limit breakers with a fine and penalty points. They may never understand the fundamental realities, even after a speed awareness course, but they will understand when their pocket is hit hard and they're in danger of losing their licence and so may change their behaviour even if their attitude stays the same.

That said, maybe educational videos like this one do have a role to play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpZRxo3EWAc

HurtLocker · 08-08-2013 3:37pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why rigorous and persistent enforcement is needed.

It is utterly pointless trying to educate the generality of motorists about the concept of relative risk with regard to speed, so I say just cut to the chase and hammer speed limit breakers with a fine and penalty points. They may never understand the fundamental realities, even after a speed awareness course, but they will understand when their pocket is hit hard and they're in danger of losing their licence and so may change their behaviour even if their attitude stays the same.

That said, maybe educational videos like this one do have a role to play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpZRxo3EWAc

Every speed camera thread goes like this now. You must get bored eventually? All talk of what is reasonable enforcement is killed with this zero tolerance crap.

Iwannahurl · 08-08-2013 3:40pm

HurtLocker wrote: »

Every speed camera thread goes like this now. You must get bored eventually? All talk of what is reasonable enforcement is killed with this zero tolerance crap.

What do you want, a free pass for all the regurgitated guff about speed, speed cameras and enforcement?

Gardai operating 'gotcha' speed traps.

Comments