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 cameras in Ireland - a guide

1…34689…26

Comments

  • #252
    usher1890
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭usher1890


    Hi

    I was driving into Monasterevin today, the speed van can be parked on the road into it at least 400/600m down from a bend. I was doing about 100kph in the 80kph zone, but the second I came round the bend and seen the van I slowed down to 70kph, and maintained this speed (just to note about 4 cars passed the van down the road when I seen it).

    As I approached the van (not sure on distance but very close) it flashed twice with a small gap int between, but at the same time two cars passed on the other side of the road.

    Is it possible I was caught? If it was the two cars coming from the other side the flash seemed very quick, so is it possible that the flash would go off withing a second or two.


  • #253
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    usher1890 wrote: »
    Hi

    I was driving into Monasterevin today, the speed van can be parked on the road into it at least 400/600m down from a bend. I was doing about 100kph in the 80kph zone, but the second I came round the bend and seen the van I slowed down to 70kph, and maintained this speed (just to note about 4 cars passed the van down the road when I seen it).

    As I approached the van (not sure on distance but very close) it flashed twice with a small gap int between, but at the same time two cars passed on the other side of the road.

    Is it possible I was caught? If it was the two cars coming from the other side the flash seemed very quick, so is it possible that the flash would go off withing a second or two.

    If there was enough distance between you and the van for four cars to pass it, and by the time you had no cars in front of you and you were below the speed limit, then you are fine.


  • #254
    usher1890
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭usher1890


    ironclaw wrote: »
    If there was enough distance between you and the van for four cars to pass it, and by the time you had no cars in front of you and you were below the speed limit, then you are fine.


    Thanks, any reason why the camera flashed twice? If it was the two cars coming from the other side it seemed too quick to catch them, and to be honest they didn't appear to be speeding and would have to be blind not to see it!


  • #255
    usher1890
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭usher1890


    Just wondering if you were to get a fine, how long would it be before you get it?


  • #256
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    usher1890 wrote: »
    Thanks, any reason why the camera flashed twice? If it was the two cars coming from the other side it seemed too quick to catch them, and to be honest they didn't appear to be speeding and would have to be blind not to see it!

    GoSafe uses infrared flash. You cannot see it. Some Garda vans do still however have a white, visible flash. However, there was talk of an amber flash coming from the vans recently. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and until I see one, I can't confirm it other than hearsay. My guess is either reflection of headlights or a warning system for motorists (Contary to popular belief the vans are not all that reflective and there has been rumours of 'near misses') However, that said, all cars are photographed. Only those speeding (Apparently) are stored.
    usher1890 wrote: »
    Just wondering if you were to get a fine, how long would it be before you get it?

    They are pretty efficient. Think anywhere between a week and month.


  • #257
    usher1890
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭usher1890


    ironclaw wrote: »
    GoSafe uses infrared flash. You cannot see it. Some Garda vans do still however have a white, visible flash. However, there was talk of an amber flash coming from the vans recently. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me and until I see one, I can't confirm it other than hearsay. My guess is either reflection of headlights or a warning system for motorists (Contary to popular belief the vans are not all that reflective and there has been rumours of 'near misses') However, that said, all cars are photographed. Only those speeding (Apparently) are stored.



    They are pretty efficient. Think anywhere between a week and month.

    Thanks, it was definitely a go-safe van, and at the top of the system there seems to be a round lens at the top, that is where I seen the flashes. I'm nearly certain it was no reflective flash. Out of interest I used google maps today to calculate the distance and it said 750m, but me being paranoid I worked it out this morning speed x time and it works out at 600m. Surely with what you have said re: 300m this puts me in the clear?


  • #258
    Lardy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 981 ✭✭✭Lardy


    The little round camera on the top is CCTV. It doesn't flash at all. It will have a red glow at night though as it uses infrared.


  • #259
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    usher1890 wrote: »
    Thanks, it was definitely a go-safe van, and at the top of the system there seems to be a round lens at the top, that is where I seen the flashes. I'm nearly certain it was no reflective flash. Out of interest I used google maps today to calculate the distance and it said 750m, but me being paranoid I worked it out this morning speed x time and it works out at 600m. Surely with what you have said re: 300m this puts me in the clear?

    Well, if you are looking straight down a queue of people, and you want to see the fourth person in the queue, how hard is it to see that person? You said there were 3 cars in front of you, between you and the van. Think about it ;)

    Either way, as a rule of thumb, a van can only measure the speed of a car roughly twice the width of an average road away, and thats if its clear. If you are speeding, that close to a van, you deserve to be caught as rarely you'll have that little time to slow down (Not that you should be speeding anyway in these zones or anywhere)


  • #260
    cabledude
    Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭cabledude


    ironclaw wrote: »
    Accuracy apparently is +/- 1.5km/h. At a minimum, its +/- 3km/h. At least that was the old spec I read.

    But look at it this way, your car speedo is normally over reading by between 5 to 10%. So at 60km/h on your speedo, your probably doing anywhere between 57km/h and 54km/h in reality.

    So, if a camera snaps you at 62km/h, your speedo will be (most likely) reading higher than 65km/h. So you know you are speeding. You know you are well over.

    Anyway, Irish law states there is no requirement for the unit to be calibrated or for them to prove the unit is accurate or even in full working order.
    That is shocking. I did not know that. Why would the Go Safe vans need to calibrate their machinery when the Gardai do not.

    What is the story in other jurisdictions?


  • #261
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    cabledude wrote: »
    That is shocking. I did not know that. Why would the Go Safe vans need to calibrate their machinery when the Gardai do not.

    What is the story in other jurisdictions?

    Legally, they don't have to calibrate them. There is no onus, on them or the Gardai, to even prove the equipment is in fully functional working order. A scandal. But unfortunately to fight that you'd need to go pretty high in the court system as you would be fighting on a point of law. Also, I'd imagine if the law was changed, you would have to refund a good few speeding tickets retrospectively :pac:

    GoSafe, and I'm pretty sure the Garda vans, do have a quick 'set up' process before they can begin capture. Its basically a distance measurement to take into account the angle they are at, placement, height about roadway etc. But its not to be mistaken for calibration.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    I'd say there are more than a few motorists who get terribly vexed about the calibration of speed cameras yet at the same time are not very attentive to what their own speedometer is telling them.

    If we motorists adhere to the posted limit, drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions and pay attention to our driving, the calibration of GoSafe and Garda equipment becomes pretty much irrelevant.


  • #263
    cabledude
    Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭cabledude


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'd say there are more than a few motorists who get terribly vexed about the calibration of speed cameras yet at the same time are not very attentive to what their own speedometer is telling them.

    If we motorists adhere to the posted limit, drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions and pay attention to our driving, the calibration of GoSafe and Garda equipment becomes pretty much irrelevant.
    When those same people receive fines and points on their licences, are they not entitled to ascertain whether the device used to catch them is operating correctly. Thats not a lot to ask.


  • #264
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'd say there are more than a few motorists who get terribly vexed about the calibration of speed cameras yet at the same time are not very attentive to what their own speedometer is telling them.

    If we motorists adhere to the posted limit, drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions and pay attention to our driving, the calibration of GoSafe and Garda equipment becomes pretty much irrelevant.

    By the way the law is, there is nothing me stopping from flashing the firmware of the camera system to add 10km/h to every car that passes. So it doesn't matter how attentive I am. If I pass at 59km/h in a 60km/h zone (Pretty safe going on where they normally are :rolleyes:) I'll be charged (wrongly) for it. Thats unjust.

    Frankly, its lunacy. And even if the firmware was perfect, whats to say the system is perfectly set up? When was it last benchmarked and verified? Who did it? Joe soap or an actual qualified engineer?

    Its the same as saying 'Well, its a murder trial and all but we never cleaned the DNA analysis machine before hand but that doesn't matter' No. You need to show due process was followed and the machine was in perfect working order before the test was carried out.

    Put it another way, how miffed would one be if the NCT emissions machine wasn't calibrated as scheduled? And you failed because of it?

    I'm sorry, but its not 'irrelevant' If you want to charge someone with an offence under the law, you better show a clear, challengeable and unambiguous chain of evidence. To accept a machine, especially an electronic one as infallible, is nonsense.

    I'm not debating speeding or the act of speeding. I'm debating how wrong and unjust it is to accept that a machine (Thats in the rear of a van, in all temperatures, all humidities and driven on Irish roads) is in perfect working order and it cannot be challenged in court.


  • #265
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    cabledude wrote: »
    When those same people receive fines and points on their licences, are they not entitled to ascertain whether the device used to catch them is operating correctly. Thats not a lot to ask.
    ironclaw wrote: »
    By the way the law is, there is nothing me stopping from flashing the firmware of the camera system to add 10km/h to every car that passes. ... Thats unjust.

    Frankly, its lunacy. And even if the firmware was perfect, whats to say the system is perfectly set up? When was it last benchmarked and verified? Who did it? Joe soap or an actual qualified engineer?

    ...

    I'm sorry, but its not 'irrelevant' If you want to charge someone with an offence under the law, you better show a clear, challengeable and unambiguous chain of evidence. To accept a machine, especially an electronic one as infallible, is nonsense.



    I'm subject to precisely the same speed surveillance technology as the people who have received points and fines, yet I have received neither points nor fines. The same goes for the thousands of motorists who have never received a ticket.

    Why do you suppose that is?


  • #266
    cabledude
    Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭cabledude


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'm subject to precisely the same speed surveillance technology as the people who have received points and fines, yet I have received neither points nor fines. The same goes for the thousands of motorists who have never received a ticket.

    Why do you suppose that is?
    Not the point.

    The last time I received a fine was in 2004. Notwithstanding that, I am uncomfortable with the Gardaí using machinery that has not or does not need to be calibrated.


  • #267
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    cabledude wrote: »
    Not the point.

    The last time I received a fine was in 2004. Notwithstanding that, I am uncomfortable with the Gardaí using machinery that has not or does not need to be calibrated.


    It is the entire point of the system.

    For people who don't get points or fines, where's the discomfort?


  • #268
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    It is the entire point of the system.

    For people who don't get points or fines, where's the discomfort?

    What?

    Ok, random breath testing check point. Imagine the equipment didn't have to be calibrated. You weren't drinking however there are tones in your breath that can trigger a positive readings (High and low blood sugar, especially common with diabetes and some other conditions) You get a positive result. Go back to the station. Once again, no calibration required and its as dodgy as hell. Fines, point and ban as a result. Completely unjust.

    What if you did get points from a dodgy laser gun? Lens a little askew, timing circuit a shade off from being lugged in and out of the Traffic Corp car etc etc. All probable.

    Do you still not have an issue with this equipment being used? Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean its unjust.

    I have zero issue with someone fair and square getting caught speeding. But I have a serious issue with someone being caught speeding with dodgy equipment. Its literally a case that a Garda can point at a car and say 'You. You were speeding' and there is nothing you can do about it.


  • #269
    cabledude
    Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭cabledude


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    It is the entire point of the system.

    For people who don't get points or fines, where's the discomfort?
    I had no discomfort with it up until today. Then I found out that the law of the land does not require sensitive electronic devices to be calibrated. That is crazy stuff. If you are happy with that situation, fair enough.

    I am uncomfortable with it. Justice should be transparent and above board. Having equipment that is not calibrated in use to hand out fines is not above board.


  • #270
    Damien360
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Damien360


    cabledude wrote: »
    I had no discomfort with it up until today. Then I found out that the law of the land does not require sensitive electronic devices to be calibrated. That is crazy stuff. If you are happy with that situation, fair enough.

    I am uncomfortable with it. Justice should be transparent and above board. Having equipment that is not calibrated in use to hand out fines is not above board.

    Calibration of equipment is expensive. I have to get work equipment calibrated and it often little more than a certificate. Looking at the data over many years, all of the devices have barely changed their read backs in all that time. This is for a range of equipment like flow meters, thermocouples, pressure meters etc., all electronic.

    Devices such as lasers will never change by any significant amount, certainly not measure able amount for you to fail/pass speeding. We are talking less than a kmph and the angle at which the laser is pointed at the car will have more bearing on the result.

    The handheld breatyliser is not court admissible evidence as it is just an indicator of alcohol. You are taken to the station one, which is calibrated. That is the court admissible evidence. If you refuse this test, you are deemed to have failed the test, again court evidence. You are arrested on suspicion at the roadside but not charged. Pass the station one and you get a lift back. Fail and you get charged. It is not in the interest of a Garda to use a faulty roadside device.

    If a Garda keeps getting fails at the roadside and passes at the station then something is wrong and to save their own time, a reasonable person would get rid of it.

    The need to have calibrated roadside devices will open a legal can of worms with every tom, dick and Harry calling his solicitor to check the calibration, wasting time and money.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    cabledude
    Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭cabledude


    Damien360 wrote: »
    The need to have calibrated roadside devices will open a legal can of worms with every tom, dick and Harry calling his solicitor to check the calibration, wasting time and money.
    No need to check the calibration. When calibrated, the cal lab will just put a cal sticker on the unit. This is what happens in Industry. No reason why it cannot be done in the context of radar guns.


  • #272
    cabledude
    Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭cabledude


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'm subject to precisely the same speed surveillance technology as the people who have received points and fines, yet I have received neither points nor fines. The same goes for the thousands of motorists who have never received a ticket.

    Why do you suppose that is?
    Would you go to a petrol station that does not have its pumps calibrated by the NSAI?

    Or buy meat in a butchers that does not calibrate its scales?


  • #273
    Damien360
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Damien360


    cabledude wrote: »
    Would you go to a petrol station that does not have its pumps calibrated by the NSAI?

    Or buy meat in a butchers that does not calibrate its scales?

    This is the level of silly calibration that has cost the Pharma industry so much. I worked in a lab with a manager that took this too far. We had to send away 30cm steel rulers for yearly calibration. We had a clock on the wall and once she realised we could be using it to time a test, she had it off the wall and sent for calibration.

    Tesco calibrate their scales on the self service checkout for the purpose of stock check and checking you are not robbing of course but a scales in a butcher will be close enough and the scales in tesco for the fruit and veg will be close enough.

    The NSAI do not calibrate a fuel pump. They certify the company doing it to say they are doing it correctly. That company can then put the NSAI logo on their stickers and letterheads.


  • #274
    Damien360
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Damien360


    cabledude wrote: »
    No need to check the calibration. When calibrated, the cal lab will just put a cal sticker on the unit. This is what happens in Industry. No reason why it cannot be done in the context of radar guns.

    No, a calibration company checks the output vs another calibrated unit. This will have been checked against another and the ultimate device (the reference) will be in a place like the NSAI. It is very any company can or will adjust. It is dumped if it fails. The sticker just says, this was checked.


  • #275
    cabledude
    Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭cabledude


    Damien360 wrote: »
    No, a calibration company checks the output vs another calibrated unit
    We'll call this the working standard/reference then.
    This will have been checked against another and the ultimate device (the reference) will be in a place like the NSAI
    For the craic, we'll call this instrument the secondary working standard/reference.
    It is dumped if it fails.
    Fine.
    The sticker just says, this was checked.
    And passed. If a radar gun was tested against a working standard and passed, great. If it was tested and shown to be outside of tolerance, then there is a problem.

    We are not dealing with lbs. of mince here or litres of petrol. We are talking about peoples driving licences.


  • #276
    gman2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭gman2k


    Primetime right now blowing the lid on privately operated speed cameras!
    Whistleblower from Gosafe....


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #278
    pa990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭pa990


    Watch it here

    http://www.rte.ie/player/show/10268884


  • #279
    Cantona's Collars
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,709 ✭✭✭✭Cantona's Collars


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    What did people expect from a private company that sets quotas for revenue & when they aren't met the government chips in to make up the shortfall.

    Now to get the 2 points revoked for allegedly doing 60kph in a 50kph zone.:P


  • #280
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    cabledude wrote: »
    Would you go to a petrol station that does not have its pumps calibrated by the NSAI?

    Or buy meat in a butchers that does not calibrate its scales?



    Not comparable, imo. In such situations, everyone is affected equally. My contention is that the biggest complainers about speed camera calibration are those who resent the very existence of speed surveillance, and who want to drive at whatever speed they choose without worrying about getting caught. I'm not unduly bothered about such things, because it's highly unlikely that I'll be done for speeding.

    Or at least I wasn't bothered, until this morning when I heard about last night's Primetime report on the GoSafe whistleblower. That's all we need right now: another piece of rot in the body politic. It will be interesting to see whether this is a widespread issue, or an isolated problem. Solicitor Evan O'Dwyer was on RTE Radio 1 this morning attempting to cast doubt on the entire system.


  • #281
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Not comparable, imo. In such situations, everyone is affected equally. My contention is that the biggest complainers about speed camera calibration are those who resent the very existence of speed surveillance, and who want to drive at whatever speed they choose without worrying about getting caught.

    I drive at the limits and within the limits every day of my life. And any mis-calibration does affect everyone equally. It certainly affects those that sensibly and correctly drive at the limits (All things considered e.g. Weather, road condition etc. I'm talking the 'general' case)

    Take my example, of a machine adding or reading 5km/h more. In a 50km/h zone, if road conditions allow, I'll be doing 50km/h on the nose. Most people would be. It would be rare for anyone to be doing considerably under in that circumstance. But we'll all get done for doing 55km/h.

    Same on the motorway. I'll be doing 120km/h on the nose, why should I be done for 125km/h when I wasn't? And don't bring Garda discretion / 'your allowed X km/h over' because thats exactly it, discretion. Nothing more. As the law currently stands, I can point a laser gun at someone (Doesn't have to be on, working or even a laser gun) and say 'You were speeding' and there is nothing you can do about it.

    And then they say 'Well, just prove you weren't' and I say how? I can't contest the machine and my DVR would be inadmissible in court. Even the blackbox system we have in some of the cars wouldn't be allowed, and its encrypted and hashed data.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ironclaw wrote: »
    Take my example, of a machine adding or reading 5km/h more. In a 50km/h zone, if road conditions allow, I'll be doing 50km/h on the nose. Most people would be. It would be rare for anyone to be doing considerably under in that circumstance. But we'll all get done for doing 55km/h.


    Except we won't. These discussions invariably go round in circles, so I have to point out again that only 1 in 20 speeding detections is in the "5-9 km/h over" category. Last year around 94% of speeding offences recorded by AGS were for speeds 10 km/h or more above the limit.

    Arguments about calibration are about one thing and one thing only: motorists wanting to break the speed limit and get away with it.


  • #283
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Except we won't. These discussions invariably go round in circles, so I have to point out again that only 1 in 20 speeding detections are 5-9 km/h category. Last year around 94% of speeding offences recorded by AGS were for speeds 10 km/h or more above the limit.

    Arguments about calibration are about one thing and one thing only: motorists wanting to break the speed limit and get away with it.

    You do realise that those statistics are completely skewed if the equipment used to make them is itself uncalibrated? I've yet to find a scientific method for statistics that allows you to use uncalibrated measurement equipment. If the equipment was off by 5 to 9km/h (An entirely reasonable amount to drift) then the statistic you quoted would itself be off.

    And if all arguments for calibration are about 'getting away with it' why in the US and more European countries is calibration mandatory, to the extent where the serial of the device use is included on your ticket? Arguments for calibration are to promote fairness and equality.

    And anyway, the Garda twitter page posted two pics recently of 180km/h readings, however they neglected to mention that they were taken at 350m+ Now, I know some good shots, but I know no one would could make a 380 yard shot onto the license plate of a moving car without zoom optics. The laser is also 3ft wide at 1000ft (305m) There is also a whole host of tests that are recommended by TeleTraffic (The makers) but I doubt they are conducted e.g. Fixed Distance, Scope alignment.

    Utter nonsense and as motorists we just accept this.


  • #284
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ironclaw wrote: »
    And if all arguments for calibration are about 'getting away with it' why in the US and more European countries is calibration mandatory, to the extent where the serial of the device use is included on your ticket?

    Arguments for calibration are to promote fairness and equality.

    Utter nonsense and as motorists we just accept this.


    As a motorist I have no issue with the system (though I'm reserving judgment on the latest Primetime exposé).

    I don't know what the situation in the EU is, but my hunch is that in the US (where there's a lot of nonsense about speed and speed limits) the use of serial numbers etc may well be a political or administrative measure to satisfy dissenters and frustrate clever lawyers.

    If motorists are so concerned about fairness, I suggest they start by always driving at a legal and appropriate speed, which has the simultaneous benefit of avoiding fines and penalty points while promoting road safety. It's only fair after all, especially when it comes to the safety of vulnerable road users.


  • #285
    keithclancy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,208 ✭✭✭keithclancy


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    As a motorist I have no issue with the system (though I'm reserving judgment on the latest Primetime exposé).

    I don't know what the situation in the EU is, but my hunch is that in the US (where there's a lot of nonsense about speed and speed limits) the use of serial numbers etc may well be a political or administrative measure to satisfy dissenters and frustrate clever lawyers.

    If motorists are so concerned about fairness, I suggest they start by always driving at a legal and appropriate speed, which has the simultaneous benefit of avoiding fines and penalty points while promoting road safety. It's only fair after all, especially when it comes to the safety of vulnerable road users.

    I agree with everything except the 'legal' bit.


  • #286
    cabledude
    Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭cabledude


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Except we won't. These discussions invariably go round in circles, so I have to point out again that only 1 in 20 speeding detections is in the "5-9 km/h over" category. Last year around 94% of speeding offences recorded by AGS were for speeds 10 km/h or more above the limit.

    Arguments about calibration are about one thing and one thing only: motorists wanting to break the speed limit and get away with it.
    No. Its about the integrity of the system. A blind man on a galloping horse would see that.


    I have no points on my licence. It's been years since I had. For someone going 20kmph over the limit, the are caught fair and square. But if someone if marginal, and the machine being used in poorly calibrated or not at all, this is a problem. People could be receiving fines and points unjustly.


  • #287
    cabledude
    Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭cabledude


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    As a motorist I have no issue with the system (though I'm reserving judgment on the latest Primetime exposé).

    I don't know what the situation in the EU is, but my hunch is that in the US (where there's a lot of nonsense about speed and speed limits) the use of serial numbers etc may well be a political or administrative measure to satisfy dissenters and frustrate clever lawyers.

    If motorists are so concerned about fairness, I suggest they start by always driving at a legal and appropriate speed, which has the simultaneous benefit of avoiding fines and penalty points while promoting road safety. It's only fair after all, especially when it comes to the safety of vulnerable road users.
    You should.......


  • #288
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    Are the private vans allowed to use the "Garda Only" slips on a motorway?

    I have also seen them utilising parking, off road, in private entrance-ways. Are they allowed to be on private grounds and collecting evidence (without owner's permission)?

    For note: I have no points and none pending, I am not trying to find a way out of points


  • #289
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    If motorists are so concerned about fairness, I suggest they start by always driving at a legal and appropriate speed, which has the simultaneous benefit of avoiding fines and penalty points while promoting road safety. It's only fair after all, especially when it comes to the safety of vulnerable road users.

    I drive at a legal and appropriate speed but currently its your word against a Garda, and that isn't going to end well in court. Its a completely unchallengeable system. Imagine you couldn't appeal your income tax because the only calculator you could use was supplied by Revenue? And whatever it said was the final line. Tough luck if you were overcharged.

    I'm currently trying to set up an experiment (Equipment pending) to show its possible for me to receive points and a fine whilst driving at a 'legal and appropriate speed' Its frightfully easy to throw a guns calibration out.


  • #290
    Damien360
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Damien360


    ironclaw wrote: »

    I'm currently trying to set up an experiment (Equipment pending) to show its possible for me to receive points and a fine whilst driving at a 'legal and appropriate speed' Its frightfully easy to throw a guns calibration out.

    Is this test with a Laser gun ? Are you basing it on this programme.



  • #291
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    cabledude wrote: »
    No. Its about the integrity of the system. A blind man on a galloping horse would see that.

    I have no points on my licence. It's been years since I had. For someone going 20kmph over the limit, the are caught fair and square. But if someone if marginal, and the machine being used in poorly calibrated or not at all, this is a problem. People could be receiving fines and points unjustly.


    There are far more people getting away with speeding than are being caught.

    Presumably the calibration issue (if there is one) works both ways, ie an uncalibrated speed camera will have both false positives and false negatives.

    Or are people claiming that the speed cameras are set up in such a way that they always read too high?

    On that last note, did anyone spot the flaw in the Primetime report?


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    Damien360
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Damien360


    Iwannahurl wrote: »

    Presumably the calibration issue (if there is one) works both ways, ie an uncalibrated speed camera will have both false positives and false negatives.

    Or are people claiming that the speed cameras are set up in such a way that they always read too high?

    Very good. That leads back to the question, is there an amount by which you must be over the limit to get in trouble. If not written, is there an informal basis for this used by garda. 10% or 5% or 10kmph over


  • #293
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Damien360 wrote: »
    Is this test with a Laser gun ? Are you basing it on this programme.

    No, we're basing it far beyond Cosine Error etc. Nothing confirmed yet. Its a hypothesis. The problem is getting equipment, time and a location.

    There are far more people getting away with speeding than are being caught.

    Thats an subjective opinion and one I wouldn't share.
    Presumably the calibration issue (if there is one) works both ways, ie an uncalibrated speed camera will have both false positives and false negatives.

    There is no issue on a false negative. Thats their problem. But a false positive is your problem and an unjust one at that.
    Or are people claiming that the speed cameras are set up in such a way that they always read too high?

    No one ever claimed that. A speed camera or device should be dead accurate or within a minuscule tolerance (Like, less than 1%) My argument is:
    • Devices aren't calibrated or if they are, proof cannot be obtained. As such, your relying on a device absolutely with no stop check or balance.
    • Device or operator can't be challenged in court.
    • There's basically no onus on the Garda to prove you were speeding beyond his word and his reliance on a device they probably doesn't fully understand.
    • Theres no requirement for anyone to prove the equipment is in full working order.

    Net result, your word against theirs. And the only person that loses out is the unfortunate motorist with fines, points and insurance hikes. Thats unjust in society. No one should be infallible or unquestionable.

    Going to watch Prime Time now and I'll report back.


  • #294
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #295
    woejus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭woejus


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    feckers, they always have a tin of glee handy


  • #296
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    There are far more people getting away with speeding than are being caught.
    ironclaw wrote: »
    Thats an subjective opinion and one I wouldn't share.


    Have you any facts indicating the opposite, or any data that would suggest that your own subjective opinion has any validity?

    For instance, according to the RSA's 2011 survey of free speed, "on average, 3 out of 5 motorists exceeded the posted speed limit in urban areas" and "the percentage of cars exceeding the speed limit on [50 km/h] urban arterial roads ... increased from 68% in 2009 to 77% in 2011."

    Are you claiming that a majority of that majority are regularly caught for speeding? If so, evidence please.

    ironclaw wrote: »
    There is no issue on a false negative. Thats their problem. But a false positive is your problem and an unjust one at that.


    Which is the point I was making earlier. The people complaining about alleged calibration issues are not worried about false negatives letting motorists get away with speeding. They're looking for a loophole that allows them to claim they weren't speeding when in fact they were.

    In my view, all these attempts to cast doubt on the process are motivated by resentment of speed surveillance, whether for personal or ideological reasons. It reminds me of the battle to control smoking. A tobacco company executive once said that "doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public." It's a familiar tactic: try to create controversy wherever possible, in the hope that it will undermine public policy.


  • #297
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,099 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Which is the point I was making earlier. The people complaining about alleged calibration issues are not worried about false negatives letting motorists get away with speeding. They're looking for a loophole that allows them to claim they weren't speeding when in fact they were.

    I assume you have evidence to back this up? Or are you a mind-reader?

    As far as I can see, anyone complaining here about potential calibration issues is more concerned about being accused in the wrong, and having no defence if/when falsely accused.


  • #298
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    blackwhite wrote: »
    I assume you have evidence to back this up? Or are you a mind-reader?

    As far as I can see, anyone complaining here about potential calibration issues is more concerned about being accused in the wrong, and having no defence if/when falsely accused.

    The way I see it is this. If I owed a gold mine and sold gold by the 100kg. If someone came back to me and said 'You only sold me 99kg' I'd want to be damn sure I could say 'Well, here is the calibration certificate, the certification of the person who did it and the date it was done' There is absolutely no grey area because of independent checks and balances. If I sold 101kg of gold and was making a loss, then thats my fault and I'm the one accountable. If I was the one doing the checks and calibration, then thats not transparent and I'd be fully expect to end up in court, and lose.

    Its not about people getting away with it. Its about a clear and accountable case for everyone involved.


  • #299
    Damien360
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Damien360


    ironclaw wrote: »
    The way I see it is this. If I owed a gold mine and sold gold by the 100kg. If someone came back to me and said 'You only sold me 99kg' I'd want to be damn sure I could say 'Well, here is the calibration certificate, the certification of the person who did it and the date it was done' There is absolutely no grey area because of independent checks and balances. If I sold 101kg of gold and was making a loss, then thats my fault and I'm the one accountable. If I was the one doing the checks and calibration, then thats not transparent and I'd be fully expect to end up in court, and lose.

    Its not about people getting away with it. Its about a clear and accountable case for everyone involved.

    What would be an acceptable level of error ? Every device has some level of error. Could a +/-10% speed be allowed by the user and catch that error. The more accuracy that is demanded, the higher the cost.

    Has anyone got the technical specifications for the device used ? That would have to state the error.


  • #300
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Damien360 wrote: »
    What would be an acceptable level of error ? Every device has some level of error. Could a +/-10% speed be allowed by the user and catch that error. The more accuracy that is demanded, the higher the cost.

    Has anyone got the technical specifications for the device used ? That would have to state the error.

    The laser gun in use is phenomenally accurate. Less than 1%. But again its not about the accuracy. Its about the ability for someone to say in court:

    "This laser gun / GoSafe van with serial X was calibrated on Y by Z and is accurate to within B%. Given the defendants speed in area Q on the Jth of U, the defendant is guilty / not guilty'

    As opposed to now where its literally:

    "You were speeding because I say so. Pay the fine"


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    mikeecho
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,244 ✭✭✭mikeecho


    Damien360 wrote: »
    What would be an acceptable level of error ? Every device has some level of error. Could a +/-10% speed be allowed by the user and catch that error. The more accuracy that is demanded, the higher the cost.

    Has anyone got the technical specifications for the device used ? That would have to state the error.


    here you go

    GoSafe vans

    SPECIFICATIONS
    Technology CW Doppler Radar


    Frequency K-band 24GHz (see option 1)
    Beam Width (HPBW) Horizontal 4.5 degrees Vertical 15 degrees
    Radiated Power <100mW eirp
    Mounting Flange Fixings or Tripod mount
    Mounting Height 1 - 3.5m nominal
    Measurement Angle In the range 22 degrees
    Speed Detection Range 20 - 300 Km/Hr
    Displacement Distance 1m
    Speed Accuracy +/- 3Km/Hr (or +/- 1.5% whichever is greater)
    Supply 9 - 30 V dc (power cables must be less than 3m)
    Current 100mA (24V dc)
    Weight 800g
    Housing Material Polycarbonate
    Housing Finish Self-coloured black
    Sealing IP66
    Operating Temperature -25º C to +60º C
    Output RS422
    EMC Specifi cation EN301-489/BSEN50293
    Radio Specifi cation ETS300.440 / FCC CFR47 Part 15.245 / AS/NZS 4268
    Highest Temp Humidity
    Combination
    50C 80%

    *1. Frequency option preset to suit
    local requirements between
    24.000GHz and 24.250GHz.




    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ4UHw51PbM


Advertisement