nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Do you warn other drivers of Garda speed-traps and the camera van?

lazybones32

Or is it a case of "if you're driving above the speed-limit, tough!"?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bongalongherb

mike_ie wrote: »

^

I'm not sure I see the problem then?

If the goal of GATSO vans on the road is truly to reduce speeding, and my flashing my lights in warning gets oncoming traffic to slow down, then surely the original objective has been achieved?

But what most folk are saying is that if a driver is speeding and get fined and penalty points for speeding, then that would be a bigger incentive for them to keep to the limit in future.

Sometimes a hard hit to the pocket and a few penalty points gets folk to take notice.

nlgbbbblth

Don't do it during your driving test.

bob50

To BMW drivers no i wouldn't flash my lights as they think they are immune from road traffic laws.
on another note on thursday night last i was driving a lot around the city it was quite foggy. And i noticed a lot of cars with full beams on Crazy stuff putting a lot of drivers in danger the gimps dont realise what they doing

kkelly77

Obviously all the responses from the "No" side don't realise there is plenty of statistically data from the UK proving speed cameras do not reduce road fatalities and are a fantastic revenue generator. Money that could be better spent on improving driver training & education.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, driving on the road can say they've always been under the speed limit everywhere they have driven. We've all done it at some time, whether it was .001km or more over.

Something to consider before parroting "it's a limit not a goal" slogans.

Bongalongherb

kkelly77 wrote: »

Obviously all the responses from the "No" side don't realise there is plenty of statistically data from the UK proving speed cameras do not reduce road fatalities and are a fantastic revenue generator. Money that could be better spent on improving driver training & education.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, driving on the road can say they've always been under the speed limit everywhere they have driven. We've all done it at some time, whether it was .001km or more over.

Something to consider before parroting "it's a limit not a goal" slogans.

But it is a limit. Why do you think a speed-sign says 80kph ? it means no more than 80kph. It's a no-brainer.

Laura Palmer

When people talk about speeding, I don't think they generally mean just two or three kilometres over the limit.

kkelly77

Bongalongherb wrote: »

But it is a limit. Why do you think a speed-sign says 80kph ? it means no more than 80kph. It's a no-brainer.

Who's disputing the meaning of a speed limit sign? This thread is questioning do people forewarn other drivers about speed traps and, in essence, a speed trap's usefulness regarding road safety.

Laura Palmer wrote: »

When people talk about speeding, I don't think they generally mean just two or three kilometres over the limit.

It still applies. An automated speed trap camera, set to record a speed greater than a set limit, won't care.

porsche959

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Oh yeh, slowing down for the few metres until the GATSO van is out of sight - real effective against the dangerous driving problem!

For the most part, there is no dangerous driving problem. Irish roads are among the safest in the world. Sorry if that doesn't fit the agenda, but sometimes facts don't fit agendas.

Laura Palmer

porsche959 wrote: »

For the most part, there is no dangerous driving problem. Irish roads are among the safest in the world. Sorry if that doesn't fit the agenda, but sometimes facts don't fit agendas.

There's no agenda I'm afraid. Why would there be?
Just an objection to speeding, even if it's not that regular occurrence. That doesn't mean there's none of it.

KERSPLAT!

mike_ie wrote: »

^

I'm not sure I see the problem then?

If the goal of GATSO vans on the road is truly to reduce speeding, and my flashing my lights in warning gets oncoming traffic to slow down, then surely the original objective has been achieved?

You obviously don't drive around all day flashing your lights for others to slow down though. The objective, I would imagine, is to stop people speeding in general not just for 15 seconds.

I've already said it about 5 times but everyone is missing it. Flashing someone slows them down for a few seconds, brilliant. A fine and points, IMO, will slow them down for a much longer duration and make them think before speeding again.

anncoates

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I'm terrible for accidentally flashing the full beams when I'm trying to indicate.

Must be reasonable for loads of people slowing down and obeying the speed limit.

LOCK ME UP OFFICERS!

News just in:

The Man recoiling from grievous body blow delivered by The People

iano.p

Sometimes I would if I thought they were only a few kph over. If they were hammering it along I would let them get the points.

Gosub

I do warn other drivers. However it's not to get one over on The Man as some here have presumed. I'm very pro-police and will help anywhere I can.

It's my belief that there are much worse things than going a few kms over some random figure plucked out of the air. (Why are some roads suddenly unsafe over 80 kms when they were safe at 100 kms for years before the motorway was built?) Drink driving is much more dangerous in my view. Where are all the checkpoints late in the day or early in the morning? No-one seems to care.

Undertaking and tailgating, again in my view, are also more dangerous. Why is there no effort to stop that? The only enforcement we see on our roads is to do with speed. I know excessive speed can kill, but a few kms over the limit isn't the same as being pissed and driving, yet it is being punished.

Don't get me started on phone use while driving!

Tokyo

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

You obviously don't drive around all day flashing your lights for others to slow down though. The objective, I would imagine, is to stop people speeding in general not just for 15 seconds.

I've already said it about 5 times but everyone is missing it. Flashing someone slows them down for a few seconds, brilliant. A fine and points, IMO, will slow them down for a much longer duration and make them think before speeding again.

By that logic, there wouldn't be a driver out there with more than two points on his or her licence, but obviously that's not the case.

The reality is that Go Safe consortium - the guys that run the GATSO vans - have zero interest in getting drivers to go slower, in fact, seeing as they are bringing in €50,000 per week their interests are quite the opposite. And as long as that's the case they aren't going to be parking their vans in accident blackspots in country roads - they'll be parking them in high traffic areas where they have the highest chance of bringing in as much revenue as possible.

IF you want to get drivers to slow down at accident blackspots and truly save lives, identlfy the danger areas, put a bright orange fixed camera at the side of the road where the black spot is, and signage a kilometre or so either side to say there's a camera ahead. I doubt you'd see an accident there again in our lfetimes. But that approach doesn't bring in €50,000 per week, so it will never be used...

looking_around

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you want them to slow down or get caught?

Both?
I would hope by getting caught, they will slow down in the future, or lose their license.

[Deleted User]

mike_ie wrote: »

By that logic, there wouldn't be a driver out there with more than two points on his or her licence, but obviously that's not the case.

The reality is that Go Safe consortium - the guys that run the GATSO vans - have zero interest in getting drivers to go slower, in fact, seeing as they are bringing in €50,000 per week their interests are quite the opposite. And as long as that's the case they aren't going to be parking their vans in accident blackspots in country roads - they'll be parking them in high traffic areas where they have the highest chance of bringing in as much revenue as possible.

IF you want to get drivers to slow down at accident blackspots and truly save lives, identlfy the danger areas, put a bright orange fixed camera at the side of the road where the black spot is, and signage a kilometre or so either side to say there's a camera ahead. I doubt you'd see an accident there again in our lfetimes. But that approach doesn't bring in €50,000 per week, so it will never be used...

Accident blackspots are usually locations where the road has retained its pre-motorvehicle characteristics, like a crossroads located a few metres after a brow of a hill. Speeding isn't the problem, not funding an engineering solution is!

As it is, there have been several fatal crashes on the (now bypassed by motorway) main road near me and none of them were directly attributed to speed.

The ones I remember were caused by:-
1, wrong side of road
2, turn right in front of oncoming car
3, crazy overtaking

Speed cameras wouldn't have saved any of these.

Tokyo

^ I should have specifically said 'speed related accidents'. having said that, most of the accident blackspots in my own area have a reduced speed limit surrounding them to slow everything down and hopefully negate the scenarios you describe. Whatever about your first point, the second and third points could certainly be negated by sticking to the prescribed limit.

[Deleted User]

mike_ie wrote: »

^ I should have specifically said 'speed related accidents'. having said that, most of the accident blackspots in my own area have a reduced speed limit surrounding them to slow everything down and hopefully negate the scenarios you describe. Whatever about your first point, the second and third points could certainly be negated by sticking to the prescribed limit.

When I said that the crashes were not speed related, I meant that the vehicles were going below the speed limit, if there was a gatso at the crash site it wouldn't have issued a ticket.

KERSPLAT!

mike_ie wrote: »

By that logic, there wouldn't be a driver out there with more than two points on his or her licence, but obviously that's not the case.

The reality is that Go Safe consortium - the guys that run the GATSO vans - have zero interest in getting drivers to go slower, in fact, seeing as they are bringing in €50,000 per week their interests are quite the opposite. And as long as that's the case they aren't going to be parking their vans in accident blackspots in country roads - they'll be parking them in high traffic areas where they have the highest chance of bringing in as much revenue as possible.

IF you want to get drivers to slow down at accident blackspots and truly save lives, identlfy the danger areas, put a bright orange fixed camera at the side of the road where the black spot is, and signage a kilometre or so either side to say there's a camera ahead. I doubt you'd see an accident there again in our lfetimes. But that approach doesn't bring in €50,000 per week, so it will never be used...

If I said that getting a fine and points will slow drivers down forever you'd be right, but I didn't. I said it was a better deterrent than someone warning you and would slow someone down for a longer duration than a flash of the lights, again IMO.

Do you not think getting caught would slow the average person down more so than a warning from another driver? I certainly do.

Don Kedick

It's the decent thing to do.

Qualitymark

I've given up the car, but when I was driving I tended to flash other drivers not so much for speed traps as for things like groups of cyclists, deer or pheasants on the road, people walking on bendy country roads, children with dogs, and so on. Just a friendly warning - "Look out, you might be better slowing a bit here".

Tokyo

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

If I said that getting a fine and points will slow drivers down forever you'd be right, but I didn't. I said it was a better deterrent than someone warning you and would slow someone down for a longer duration than a flash of the lights, again IMO.

Do you not think getting caught would slow the average person down more so than a warning from another driver? I certainly do.

If that were the case then the number of tickets being issued each yera would be dropping , but they're not. I'm not trying to be argumentative for arguments sake - I'm happy to see the roads being made a safer place, I just don't think that GATSO vans are the way to do it - at least not the way they are being operated (for profit).

I'm not sure if the same idea is applied here, but where I lived in Australia, the police themselves would announce hourly on the radio a list of locations they'd be setting up speed checkpoints. Revenue generated was obviously reduced, but it was a far more effective measure towards keeping overall driver speed down.

Laura Palmer

Gosub wrote: »

I do warn other drivers. However it's not to get one over on The Man as some here have presumed. I'm very pro-police and will help anywhere I can.

It's my belief that there are much worse things than going a few kms over some random figure plucked out of the air. (Why are some roads suddenly unsafe over 80 kms when they were safe at 100 kms for years before the motorway was built?) Drink driving is much more dangerous in my view. Where are all the checkpoints late in the day or early in the morning? No-one seems to care.

Undertaking and tailgating, again in my view, are also more dangerous. Why is there no effort to stop that? The only enforcement we see on our roads is to do with speed. I know excessive speed can kill, but a few kms over the limit isn't the same as being pissed and driving, yet it is being punished.

Yes, prosecuting someone for going over the speed limit by two or three kilometres on a quiet road is a waste IMO. Sometimes it's actually really difficult to stay within the speed limit (and I'm not driving a big powerful car - I drive a nice small girlie car

) and some speed limits seem very arbitrary. If anyone is familiar with the road between Blarney and Tower in Cork, Jesus it's the most stupid 50kmph I think I've ever encountered. It's mostly a quiet, tree-lined road (no houses for a very good stretch of it) with a footpath. Then a bunch of housing estates - and fair enough to put the 50kmph speed limit in at that point.

However there ARE people who will drive 80kmph in a 60kmph zone - and not just on a quiet country road, and these do not deserve to be warned, they deserve to get caught. When people are saying stuff like "Always" or "It's the decent thing to do" or "anyone who doesn't is a gimp" in response to this thread's question, either they're not thinking it through and they're not taking people like the above into consideration, or they are just trying to look like they're sticking it to the man.

I don't know that excessive speed is less dangerous than drink-driving, in terms of impact at least.

NotCominBack

Qualitymark wrote: »

I've given up the car, but when I was driving I tended to flash other drivers not so much for speed traps as for things like groups of cyclists, deer or pheasants on the road, people walking on bendy country roads, children with dogs, and so on. Just a friendly warning - "Look out, you might be better slowing a bit here".

Sure ye may as well have kept yer full beams on there pal

Kalyke

But, is it illegal?

Galwayguy35

I drove through Craughwell a few weeks ago, the Guard was sitting in his car with the speed gun in the middle of the village, now anyone that knows Craughwell you can't floor it going through the village.

As long as the Guards/speed vans take the easy options to catch people only going a few km over the limit I'll warn others.

galwaycyclist

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I drove through Craughwell a few weeks ago, the Guard was sitting in his car with the speed gun in the middle of the village, now anyone that knows Craughwell you can't floor it going through the village.

As long as the Guards/speed vans take the easy options to catch people only going a few km over the limit I'll warn others.

Define "a few km over the limit"? The impact energy of a car is proportional to thesquare of the speed.

Someone flooring it through Craughwell at 60kmh represents a much bigger threat than someone doing 50kmh.

Gosub

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Define "a few km over the limit"? The impact energy of a car is proportional to thesquare of the speed.

Someone flooring it through Craughwell at 60kmh represents a much bigger threat than someone doing 50kmh.

Yeah, emotive language. Just what we need.

[Deleted User]

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Define "a few km over the limit"? The impact energy of a car is proportional to thesquare of the speed.

Someone flooring it through Craughwell at 60kmh represents a much bigger threat than someone doing 50kmh.

What sort of car would you be driving if you had to "floor it" to get to 60kmh?

Galwayguy35

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Define "a few km over the limit"? The impact energy of a car is proportional to thesquare of the speed.

Someone flooring it through Craughwell at 60kmh represents a much bigger threat than someone doing 50kmh.

Do you even drive?

Calling going at 60 km flooring it .