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

Gardai operating 'gotcha' speed traps.

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why rigorous and persistent enforcement is needed.
    That won't solve anything, it won't make the roads safer. What we need is proper education and driving classes, I know my car very well, I know how much distance I need for braking and I do test it's limits, I've never lost control of my car. I have never been in a crash in 15 years yet I know plenty of people that go slower than me but assume they're safe because their below an arbitrary speed limit and decide it's ok for them to look out the side window and end up having an accident.

    While enforcement is needed it's like using a band aid for cancer. Obeying the speed limits does not automatically make you a safe driver and going 5kph over the speed limit isn't going to make you unsafe, I still maintain constant checking of your speedo is more dangerous than an extra 5kph.


  • Options
    #153
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    hoodwinked wrote: »
    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,
    Well where do you have your degree on traffic management from? The faster you go the less you know about your breaking distance combined with the road surface changing pretty constantly.
    Just because back roads are also dangerous doesn't mean that other roads should be ignored.

    I am more curious about the evidence you have proving it is a money making scam.


  • Options
    #154
    Gotham
    Registered Users Posts: 406 ✭✭Gotham


    They do the same thing RIGHT HERE:
    https://www.google.com/maps?ll=53.353132,-6.363726&spn=0.001559,0.004144&t=h&dg=opt&z=19
    It's about 20 meters from a speed limit change of 80 Kmph to 60 Kmph.
    This IMO is the worst and most blatant trap I've seen in Dublin.


  • Options
    #155
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    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, 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
    That RAB is already traffic-light controlled - the problems occur well before then. It's not as simple as two lanes of traffic merging into one - which would naturally form a zip. What you have is two lanes merging into two lanes (in addition to drivers cutting right across from the outside lane), with individual vehicles in each lane either staying straight or changing - vastly increasing the number of potential actions by drivers.

    If you slow down (in the centre lane) you're effectively forcing traffic inside you to either a) undertake or b) match your speed to prevent undertaking.

    Of course it isn't quite as simplistic to infer that raising the speed limit would make it inherently safer (or that a low limit is always "dangerous") A lot depends on traffic volume, flow and spacing - which isn't always uniform. Driver judgement is always more important than driver speed.

    Assessing 'dangerous driving' is a lot more complex than "speed kills", a memorable slogan but essentially meaningless. Clamping down on lane-hogging, undertaking, tailgating, inadequate signalling, etc as well as inappropriate speeding. Overtaking in a swift fashion isn't necessarily a dangerous manoeuvre - in many cases it is the safest method.

    Finally road safety shouldn't solely be about policing (and specifically policing speed), infrastructure and planning play a major role. Design of junctions/intersections, predicting traffic flow at peak and off-peak times, parking, analysing pedestrian movement and behaviour, etc. These factors seem to be sorely overlooked in favour of the one-size fits all speed-limit.


  • Options
    #156
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    ScumLord wrote: »
    That won't solve anything, it won't make the roads safer. What we need is proper education and driving classes, I know my car very well, I know how much distance I need for braking and I do test it's limits, I've never lost control of my car. I have never been in a crash in 15 years yet I know plenty of people that go slower than me but assume they're safe because their below an arbitrary speed limit and decide it's ok for them to look out the side window and end up having an accident.

    While enforcement is needed it's like using a band aid for cancer. Obeying the speed limits does not automatically make you a safe driver and going 5kph over the speed limit isn't going to make you unsafe, I still maintain constant checking of your speedo is more dangerous than an extra 5kph.

    Every study shows increase the risk of being caught on any crime and it drops dramatically. Increasing punishment actually does little long term.

    Increased policing would be more akin to stopping people from smoking than a plaster to prevent cancer rather than a cure. Some people are going to die of cancer as some will die on the roads but greatly reduced if you prevent the cause.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Jimminy Mc Fukhead
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 305 ✭✭Jimminy Mc Fukhead


    You'd never think of buying a box of plasters when you're in the shop. But they're always useful to have.


  • Options
    #158
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Every study shows increase the risk of being caught on any crime and it drops dramatically. Increasing punishment actually does little long term.

    Increased policing would be more akin to stopping people from smoking than a plaster to prevent cancer rather than a cure. Some people are going to die of cancer as some will die on the roads but greatly reduced if you prevent the cause.
    Increased policing is one thing and I agree with it. We have some of the safest roads in the world right next door to us in the UK and the difference is they take policing the roads seriously. For them the ethos seems to be prevention rather than putting a speed camera on a busy junction every so often. In the UK you won't go far without seeing a police car doing something.

    But just throwing out the odd fine when it suits them isn't going to make any dent on driving styles.


  • Options
    #159
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,776 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Just because back roads are also dangerous doesn't mean that other roads should be ignored.

    I am more curious about the evidence you have proving it is a money making scam.

    Considering the N11 doesnt have 1 fatality whatsoever yet the gardai consistently do speed traps on it specifically on the parts between donnybrook and foxrock where the speed limit is stupidly reduced to 60kph instead of the usual 80kph for roads of that design.
    Also the Rock road has no fatalities yet where are gardai regularly seen? on the other side of the road to their station cus all they could be arsed doing is walking across the road to beef up their numbers at end of each month when they havent met quota


  • Options
    #160
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Considering the N11 doesnt have 1 fatality whatsoever yet the gardai consistently do speed traps on it specifically on the parts between donnybrook and foxrock where the speed limit is stupidly reduced to 60kph instead of the usual 80kph for roads of that design.
    Also the Rock road has no fatalities yet where are gardai regularly seen? on the other side of the road to their station cus all they could be arsed doing is walking across the road to beef up their numbers at end of each month when they havent met quota
    Still not seeing any evidence it makes money! It could be just as easy as them taking the easy option to catch people who are speeding as the assumption is they will also be the ones speeding elsewhere.

    Isn't the speed limit reduced there because there are access points onto the roads at those points? How would you suggest these people get in and out with cars going 80kph? I do think the roads have been badly designed on this point but unless they buy the property and close the access points off they can't change the speed limit.

    If there are no fatalities there then doesn't that prove it works? Although being paralysed in an accident is not good for anyone and just because an accident isn't fatal doesn't really mean the road is being used safely

    Any proof on the garda have a quota system on catching speeder?


  • Options
    #161
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Considering the N11 doesnt have 1 fatality whatsoever yet the gardai consistently do speed traps on it specifically on the parts between donnybrook and foxrock where the speed limit is stupidly reduced to 60kph instead of the usual 80kph for roads of that design.
    Wasn't there two Gardaí killed by a joyrider on that stretch about 10 years back? Might explain the somewhat overzealous nature in catching speeders there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Isn't the speed limit reduced there because there are access points onto the roads at those points? How would you suggest these people get in and out with cars going 80kph?
    You should really be the doing the same speed as the cars on the dual carriageway/motorway by the time you're at the end of the slip road. I always thought that was the point of them. If you have traffic merging onto a 120kph road doing 60kph, that's dangerous.


  • Options
    #163
    Christ the Redeemer
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭Christ the Redeemer


    Drive the ****ing speed limit and can't "gottcha"


  • Options
    #164
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,365 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    ScumLord wrote: »
    You should really be the doing the same speed as the cars on the dual carriageway/motorway by the time you're at the end of the slip road. I always thought that was the point of them. If you have traffic merging onto a 120kph road doing 60kph, that's dangerous.

    Access points as in people who live off the road or businesses not slip roads.


  • Options
    #165
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Increased policing is one thing and I agree with it. We have some of the safest roads in the world right next door to us in the UK and the difference is they take policing the roads seriously. For them the ethos seems to be prevention rather than putting a speed camera on a busy junction every so often. In the UK you won't go far without seeing a police car doing something.

    But just throwing out the odd fine when it suits them isn't going to make any dent on driving styles.



    In the UK you won't go far without seeing a speed camera, whether mobile or fixed. There are at least 4000 fixed speed cameras in the UK I believe.



    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why rigorous and persistent enforcement is needed.
    ScumLord wrote: »
    That won't solve anything, it won't make the roads safer. What we need is proper education and driving classes, I know my car very well, I know how much distance I need for braking and I do test it's limits, I've never lost control of my car. I have never been in a crash in 15 years yet I know plenty of people that go slower than me but assume they're safe because their below an arbitrary speed limit and decide it's ok for them to look out the side window and end up having an accident.

    While enforcement is needed it's like using a band aid for cancer. Obeying the speed limits does not automatically make you a safe driver and going 5kph over the speed limit isn't going to make you unsafe, I still maintain constant checking of your speedo is more dangerous than an extra 5kph.


    All just the same old excuses trotted out in a feeble attempt to justify one thing: driving at whatever speed you want whenever you want. You might know your car very well but you clearly know next to nothing about the speed-risk relationship or about the value of speed surveillance.

    Luckily enough, neither you nor all the other "my speed" drivers making similar excuses and similar claims don't get to decide such things. Which is where enforcement comes in.

    Are you claiming that speed surveillance does not save lives? If so, provide an authoritative and convincing source to back up that claim or GTFO. Note: boards.ie, the Daily Mail and Safe Speed UK don't fall under that rubric.


  • Options
    #166
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Jimoslimos wrote: »
    Assessing 'dangerous driving' is a lot more complex than "speed kills", a memorable slogan but essentially meaningless. Clamping down on lane-hogging, undertaking, tailgating, inadequate signalling, etc as well as inappropriate speeding. Overtaking in a swift fashion isn't necessarily a dangerous manoeuvre - in many cases it is the safest method.

    Finally road safety shouldn't solely be about policing (and specifically policing speed), infrastructure and planning play a major role. Design of junctions/intersections, predicting traffic flow at peak and off-peak times, parking, analysing pedestrian movement and behaviour, etc. These factors seem to be sorely overlooked in favour of the one-size fits all speed-limit.



    Speed is the most important factor to regulate, as it is always present as a risk factor.

    Speed kills may be a slogan or a sound-bite, but that does not change the fundamental fact that higher speed increases the risk of a casualty crash. The cost-effectiveness of speed surveillance is high, which is why it's emphasised in developed countries the world over.

    It's justifiably a high-priority element of road safety policy, but of course it shouldn't be the only one.

    As usual though, the purpose of the what aboutery is not to argue for greater overall road traffic law enforcement but for less speed enforcement.


  • Options
    #167
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    All just the same old excuses trotted out in a feeble attempt to justify one thing: driving at whatever speed you want whenever you want.
    There you go with your assumptions again, you know what they say about those? You know nothing about the way that I drive, all I've done is make a point about going a little bit over the speed limit not automatically making a car unsafe. You've taken it upon yourself to invent a story to go along with it.

    Are you claiming that speed surveillance does not save lives? If so, provide an authoritative and convincing source to back up that claim or GTFO. Note: boards.ie, the Daily Mail and Safe Speed UK don't fall under that rubric.
    I'm not making any such claims but simply turning up at a busy part of the road every so often is ineffectual. Proper education and training would be much more effective than enforcing the speed limit every so often.


  • Options
    #168
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Speed kills may be a slogan or a sound-bite, but that does not change the fundamental fact that higher speed increases the risk of a casualty crash.
    By that logic countries like Germany with their higher speed limits must have more crashes. Or by raising the speed limit does it become safe to travel at those speeds?


  • Options
    #169
    EdCastle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭EdCastle


    EyeSight wrote: »
    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

    The law of the land is there to keep the citizens of the country in check, its not there as a guideline that you can use liberally for your own convenience. The only deterrent that people seem to understand is when it hits them in the pocket....hit them harder I say!

    Catching people speeding whether it be 10kph or 50kph is as valid as catching drug dealers and burglars. They are just as much a danger to the public and could easily kill a bystander or pedestrian stone dead with their 'numpty' carry on.

    Obey the rules of the road and you won't have anything to worry about.


  • Options
    #170
    EyeSight
    Registered Users Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭EyeSight


    EdCastle wrote: »
    The law of the land is there to keep the citizens of the country in check, its not there as a guideline that you can use liberally for your own convenience. The only deterrent that people seem to understand is when it hits them in the pocket....hit them harder I say!

    Catching people speeding whether it be 10kph or 50kph is as valid as catching drug dealers and burglars. They are just as much a danger to the public and could easily kill a bystander or pedestrian stone dead with their 'numpty' carry on.

    Obey the rules of the road and you won't have anything to worry about.

    that's not my point. I never said that they shouldn't be catching dangerous drivers(read my post). I said that they absolutely focus on this revenue generating police work rather than catching burglars and drug dealers. Which i would much prefer they dedicate more resources to.


  • Options
    #171
    HurtLocker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭HurtLocker


    EdCastle wrote: »
    The law of the land is there to keep the citizens of the country in check, its not there as a guideline that you can use liberally for your own convenience. The only deterrent that people seem to understand is when it hits them in the pocket....hit them harder I say!

    Catching people speeding whether it be 10kph or 50kph is as valid as catching drug dealers and burglars. They are just as much a danger to the public and could easily kill a bystander or pedestrian stone dead with their 'numpty' carry on.

    Obey the rules of the road and you won't have anything to worry about.

    Great because when elderly people fear for there property and lives. Have no fear the guards are catching motorists doing 110km/h. in a 100km/h .Clap clap to the boys in blue. Getting there priorities and falling even further in the eyes of the average law abiding people. Wouldnt it be as great if the guards were as proactive and visible when it comes to underage drinking, car theft, burglary and rural crime as they were for speeding.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    maniac2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 123 ✭✭maniac2000


    HurtLocker wrote: »
    Great because when elderly people fear for there property and lives. Have no fear the guards are catching motorists doing 110km/h. in a 100km/h .Clap clap to the boys in blue. Getting there priorities and falling even further in the eyes of the average law abiding people. Wouldnt it be as great if the guards were as proactive and visible when it comes to underage drinking, car theft, burglary and rural crime as they were for speeding.

    What a stupid comment to make.. Do you think the only Guards working are the two doing speed checks!


  • Options
    #173
    HurtLocker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 655 ✭✭✭HurtLocker


    maniac2000 wrote: »
    What a stupid comment to make.. Do you think the only Guards working are the two doing speed checks!

    No but I dont think they are a big enough presence in rural communities.


  • Options
    #174
    maniac2000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 123 ✭✭maniac2000


    HurtLocker wrote: »
    No but I dont think they are a big enough presence in rural communities.

    Ye fair enough I suppose. your last comment was a bit extreme!


  • Options
    #175
    Aineoil
    Registered Users Posts: 1,358 ✭✭✭Aineoil


    HurtLocker wrote: »
    No but I dont think they are a big enough presence in rural communities.

    This point was brought home to me only last week when I was visiting my parents. My mother is 69 and my father is 79. I don't want to go the ins and out of it, but they are really concerned about their security, so much so, they now sleep in a bedroom they consider more secure.

    My mother said to me, if anyone breaks in we can lock ourselves into this bedroom and we can't in the other bedroom.

    When elderly people feel unsafe, there's something wrong with society.

    Please don't jump down my throat, I'm practical. I know you can't have a guard in every house or on every street or road in Ireland. But I would like to see a bigger presence of guards in rural areas.

    But unfortunately, there are not enough guards to go around and deal with everything. I'm sure the gardaí are frustrated with the system too.

    I don't mean to hijack the thread. I just had to reply to an issue raised here.


  • Options
    #176
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ScumLord wrote: »
    There you go with your assumptions again, you know what they say about those? You know nothing about the way that I drive, all I've done is make a point about going a little bit over the speed limit not automatically making a car unsafe. You've taken it upon yourself to invent a story to go along with it.

    I'm not making any such claims but simply turning up at a busy part of the road every so often is ineffectual. Proper education and training would be much more effective than enforcing the speed limit every so often.



    I know about the way you describe your driving. A sample of your attitude as expressed on Boards:
    ScumLord wrote: »
    There are 30kph speed limits now? I'll have to slow down and have a look at one or two of these signs some time.

    You have tried to define unsafe speed (in 50-60 km/h zones iirc) as "one where you can't control the car anymore", without offering a shred of evidence to support that assertion.

    You have claimed, again without backing it up, that rigorous and persistent speed enforcement "won't make the roads safer".

    All that other stuff about other forms of risky or dangerous driving is really just what aboutery.

    Can you say whether or not these statements are true or false:

    1. Speed cameras save lives.
    2. Speed is the most important risk factor to regulate.
    3. Speed is always present as a risk factor.
    4. Higher speed increases the risk of a casualty crash.
    5. Even small increases in speed can significantly increase risk.
    6. Reducing average speed has a major impact on the number of casualties, far more than any other individual risk factor.

    If you believe that any of the above statements are false, can you point to any authoritative source that shows why that is the case?


  • Options
    #177
    wil
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭wil


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    1. Speed cameras save lives.
    2. Speed is the most important risk factor to regulate.
    3. Speed is always present as a risk factor.
    4. Higher speed increases the risk of a casualty crash.
    5. Even small increases in speed can significantly increase risk.
    6. Reducing average speed has a major impact on the number of casualties, far more than any other individual risk factor.

    If you believe that any of the above statements are false, can you point to any authoritative source that shows why that is the case?

    I believe that excess speed is not good but therapeutic doses may have their uses.


  • Options
    #178
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    "Therapeutic" for whom?


  • Options
    #179
    JustAThought
    Registered Users Posts: 5,324 ✭✭✭JustAThought


    A parked camera speed ticket van can cause utter chaos on a fast (100 kph ) limit road as cars break suddenly and swing lanes to avoid other sudden breaking cars.

    I'd live to see stats on how many misses or near misses are caused by these. There is one clise to me by a school & it is only a matter of time before a child is killed by the chaos that ensues.

    A few gaurds policing the yummy mummy illegal u turns & dangerous larking on blind bends would be a better spend of resources -not to mention the parents piling their " precious" children out onto the traffic side of roads.


  • Options
    #180
    EdCastle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭EdCastle


    JustAThought wrote: »
    A parked camera speed ticket van can cause utter chaos on a fast (100 kph ) limit road as cars break suddenly and swing lanes to avoid other sudden breaking cars.
    .

    What's a 'fast limit road'? ..ridiculous statement!

    The speed limit isn't a target....it's there as a guideline, you are supposed to maintain a speed that allows you to adjust in the event of an emergency. What happens if you have a blowout in a built up area or on a motorway, combined with speed many an inexperienced driver will lose control. Speed only adds to the impending carnage.

    If all cars are having to brake suddenly then it is obvious that everyone is speeding............hence the need for a greater number of speed detection vans and fines for those who flaunt the law. People who break the law need to start coughing up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    EdCastle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭EdCastle


    HurtLocker wrote: »
    Great because when elderly people fear for there property and lives. Have no fear the guards are catching motorists doing 110km/h. in a 100km/h .Clap clap to the boys in blue. Getting there priorities and falling even further in the eyes of the average law abiding people. Wouldnt it be as great if the guards were as proactive and visible when it comes to underage drinking, car theft, burglary and rural crime as they were for speeding.

    Yeah, I know what you're saying, why don't they catch 'real criminals' because 'i'm just an ordinary joe who just breaks the speed limit every now and again, how am I doing any harm?'

    ..........breaking the speed limit is breaking the law, it is a danger to the public. It is valid as any of the things that you mention.

    You run somebody down then you will live with that on your conscious for the rest of your life, despite what you think speeding is a serious problem all over the country, many rural towns and villages have been devastated by members of their community run down or killed in accidents....slow down!


Advertisement