Why don't we have speed cameras everywhere?

JC01 · 11-04-2016 03:11PM

gozunda wrote: »

Following the "driver theory" test a successful applicant becomes a learner with a learners permit.

Insurance requirements would remain the same for qualified drivers

The current situation with insurance is that you must have a valid licence. To obtain NCT a driver needs to show their insurance. Full Cross complience is only a matter of time.

The nitty gritty is largely irrelevant as there are always exceptions.

How do you test a car with no insurance policy in that situation? Eg a car driven on a fleet policy? A lot of cars on the road are insured to be so but do not have there own policy attached to them

gozunda · 11-04-2016 03:31PM

frozenfrozen wrote: »

that makes no sense. How can someone be expected to get insurance before they get a license?

I don't care about the bold part, if I had an issue with that I would have quoted it from your original post.

Why not have cross complience? You didn't give any actual reason why cross complience is not acceptable.

It's not that they would "be expexted get insurance before they get a license" rather you would have to show that you have insurance before your licenced was renewed / issued. If you have a car, motor tax, insurance and are going to drive then you will obviously need a licence as well.

Cross complience means that people are fully legal and other road users are protected against accidents potentially caused by you.

Theory test participants are a moot point in your example.

The examples of existing complience included my last post only show that cross complience is already being adopted and not the mountain that you presume.

Again the question is
Why not have cross complience?

bpmurray · 11-04-2016 03:32PM

I lived in Denmark 25 years ago, and then they had correlation between car and insurance so that if you didn't have insurance, the police turned up and snipped off your number plates. The advances in computing today could easily link insurance, NCT, road tax and whatever other tax they decide to add, making enforcement a simple administrative act rather than having to drag the gardai into non-criminal stuff.

On the original point, there's a strong focus on speed and road deaths. However, if you look at these as being extreme personal injuries, and include them with all personal injuries statistics, dangerous overtaking beats speeding by a long way as the primary cause. Placing cameras supported with clever analytics at black spots to capture dangerous overtaking would probably have a far greater iimpact on injuries, including fatalities.

JustTheOne · 11-04-2016 03:33PM

What I don't get is idiots putting up on Facebook where speed cameras are, or apps that tell you.

Or when people call a gard sneaky when he is hiding with a camera around a bend.

If you're speeding and breaking the law you should be caught and dealt with.

gozunda · 11-04-2016 03:36PM

JC01 wrote: »

How do you test a car with no insurance policy in that situation? Eg a car driven on a fleet policy? A lot of cars on the road are insured to be so but do not have there own policy attached to them

How does nct for similar vehicles work that require insurance? As showed cross complience is already being used by NCT and insurance. The majority of cars on the road are directly owned. Exceptions doesn't prevent this being implemented at some point in the future.

Its definitly better than having some mad world where everyone has a camera pointed at them 24/7.

What would you suggest then?

frozenfrozen · 11-04-2016 03:38PM

gozunda wrote: »

Why not have cross complience? You didn't give any actual reason why cross complience is not acceptable.

It's not that they would "be expexted get insurance before they get a license" rather you would have to show that you have insurance before your licenced was renewed / issued. If you have a car, motor tax, insurance and are going to drive then you will obviously need a licence as well.

Cross complience means that people are fully legal and other road users are protected against accidents potentially caused by you.

Theory test participants are a moot point.

The examples of existing complience in bold show that cross complience is already being adopted and not the mountain that you presume.

Again the question is
Why not have cross complience?

I never said anything about cross compliance so stop trying to say that I said anything about it.

I had an issue with you saying that people should not be able to get a license without insurance. That is not a plausible idea for many different reasons.

Jayop · 11-04-2016 03:40PM

JustTheOne wrote: »

What I don't get is idiots putting up on Facebook where speed cameras are, or apps that tell you.

Or when people call a gard sneaky when he is hiding with a camera around a bend.

If you're speeding and breaking the law you should be caught and dealt with.

I dunno about that really. If people think there's going to be a speed van then they will slow down so even by telling people there's a speed trap you're making the road safer.

Look at what the guards in Mayo did a few year ago by putting out cardboard cut out traffic cars to slow people down. I see that as no different.

ironclaw · 11-04-2016 03:46PM

JustTheOne wrote: »

What I don't get is idiots putting up on Facebook where speed cameras are, or apps that tell you.

Or when people call a gard sneaky when he is hiding with a camera around a bend.

If you're speeding and breaking the law you should be caught and dealt with.

Has a greater effect in my opinion the more people talk about it. People become aware, sparks a conversation. Think about a recent news story you heard from a friend, has a far better impact than a headline you read. Its social engagement and humans thrive on that. Its the basis of modern marketing.

How often would you lift off in an area you've been warned about? There are sections I do, every single time. Now, granted most are motorways or barrel straights, but it sparks a small thought as to my speed. For the brain dead Joe Soap, thats a good thing in my book.

I don't agree with speed cameras as they have so much scope that is not being used in a manner that in my mind would be far more effective. To name but a few, in the right conditions of course:

- Seat belt enforcement
- Incorrect light usage or lack of (Never again would be have a Fog Light thread)
- Tax, NCT & Insurance
- Defective or dangerous cars e.g. Overloaded, unsafe, unsecure loads.

People might actually stop and think about driving and take it somewhat seriously if they knew they weren't acting in the best interests of the others we share the road with and being heavily penalised for it, because none of the above are excusable.

Indricotherium · 11-04-2016 03:49PM

Jayop wrote: »

I dunno about that really. If people think there's going to be a speed van then they will slow down so even by telling people there's a speed trap you're making the road safer.

Look at what the guards in Mayo did a few year ago by putting out cardboard cut out traffic cars to slow people down. I see that as no different.

Exactly.

The purpose of the enforcement is to slow people down, not to catch people.

gozunda · 11-04-2016 03:49PM

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I never said anything about cross compliance so stop trying to say that I said anything about it.

I had an issue with you saying that people should not be able to get a license without insurance. That is not a plausible idea for many different reasons.

Well don't reply to my post about cross complience then

I said -

Uninsured drivers should not be able to get a drivers licence or road tax. A cross complience check would ensure that anyone without insurance would be committing a more serious offence of driving illegally on all counts.

Btw those two sentences are not to meant to be read separately get it?

You said in reply

Uninsured drivers should not be able to get a drivers license? What?

I don't care for your unmentioned 'other reasons' I was talking about 'cross complience' of all legal driver /vehicle requirements.

I think you're on another thread there. :rolleyes:

h3000 · 11-04-2016 03:54PM

Mobile phone use, texting and social media in particular while driving must be one of the biggest causes of accidents recently. I live in a semi rural area with fairly narrow roads and everyday (i really do mean everyday) going to or from work I will meet at least one driver drifting to the wrong side of the road often on or just before/after bends due to paying more attention to the phone than the road.
There are too long straight stretches of road half a mile to one mile in length on my commute. There has already been three accidents (that I've seen) there this year... How does on have an accident on a straight road?? Not ****ing looking at it is probably right up there anyway.

frozenfrozen · 11-04-2016 03:54PM

gozunda wrote: »

Well don't reply to my post about cross complience[sic] then

I don't care for your unmentioned 'other reasons' I was talking about 'cross complience' of all legal driver /vehicle requirements.

I think your on another thread there. :rolleyes:

so you're in agreement that it's a stupid idea to say it shouldn't be possible to get a licence without having insurance? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:;)

gozunda · 11-04-2016 03:57PM

frozenfrozen wrote: »

so you're in agreement that it's a stupid idea to say it shouldn't be possible to get a licence without having insurance? ...

Poor try - but your argument re licence and insurance was bogus because it's not even on the same page.

You could at least try to detail some of your 'different reasons' next time

Do keep up (sic)

paddythe goat · 11-04-2016 03:59PM

would like to see much more cctv in all town centres, since cops went off beat on the street many years ago....due to several reasons.....i think more cctv on streets close to banks, post offices....etc etc....would help reduce robberies and personal attacks.....................and keep eye on cars., vans, moving about maybe in places where they should not be.....or maybe they are having a good look with a view to return later to do damage

JustTheOne · 11-04-2016 03:59PM

Jayop wrote: »

I dunno about that really. If people think there's going to be a speed van then they will slow down so even by telling people there's a speed trap you're making the road safer.

Look at what the guards in Mayo did a few year ago by putting out cardboard cut out traffic cars to slow people down. I see that as no different.

Slow down for a minute then back to speeding once past it?

How will that stop people speeding?

Is it not better to actually catch people and punish them instead.

That will make people think twice.

frozenfrozen · 11-04-2016 04:01PM

gozunda wrote: »

Poor try - but your argument re licence and insurance was bogus because it's not even on the same page.

Do keep up (sic)

Nice try. You said something silly and I called you out on it. You tried to change the subject but it's not happening. Better luck next time

Sam Kade · 11-04-2016 04:02PM

There's a new camera at the traffic lights in mallow because drivers were constantly running red lights, they obeyed the lights for about a week and are back to their usual driving style again.

Jayop · 11-04-2016 04:07PM

JustTheOne wrote: »

Slow down for a minute then back to speeding once past it?

How will that stop people speeding?

Is it not better to actually catch people and punish them instead.

That will make people think twice.

Who knows. It's just guess work either way unless you have some evidence that points to one being more effective than the other.

Again, for me people would have more respect for speed camera vans if they weren't simply placed in locations to maximize revenue rather than prevent accidents. Like a lot of decisions made by recent governments they are pushing ordinary people to have less respect for the Guards and for things like speed vans.

gozunda · 11-04-2016 05:01PM

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Nice try. You said something silly and I called you out on it. You tried to change the subject but it's not happening. Better luck next time

Yeah sure

For sone daft reason you decided to cherry pick and argue out of context. Then you wouldnt even admit that you did that even when it was pointed out. At least read what is written. That tends to help.

frozenfrozen · 11-04-2016 05:06PM

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah sure

For sone daft reason you decided to cherry pick and argue out of context. Then you wouldnt even admit that you did that even when it was pointed out. At least read what is written. That tends to help.

What are you still trying to do? Stop whatever it is

gozunda · 11-04-2016 05:21PM

frozenfrozen wrote: »

What are you still trying to do? Stop whatever it is

? ? ? ...

frozenfrozen · 11-04-2016 05:25PM

gozunda wrote: »

? ? ? ...

We were done after you agreed that the text I apparently took out of context was bollox. No need to keep replying trying to be smart.

NiallBoo · 11-04-2016 05:29PM

A couple of things that I'd like to see are:

Increased motorway speed limits with strict enforcement of limits
- Why not increase the limits to 130 (standard in Europe) or even 140. I'ts what plenty of people do anyway but strictly enforce limits so people don't go over that.
Variable speed limits on the M50
- Engineers will tell you that lower speed limits at peak times will actually lead to less congestion and shorter journey times, but it seems that it could easily handle 120 for off-peak times without problem. There are lots of places that use variable limits successfully, so why not us?

Deleted User wrote: »

If you put cameras on every road at all times, and put cameras on every entry and exit ramp on a motorway, it would never pay for itself. The only reason GoSafe catch anyone is because they get them off-guard (most of the time they're halfway behind a bush, or on a turn on the road).

If they were on every road, no one would speed. And if I knew my untaxed, uninsured car with no NCT would be flagged the minute I put it on a motorway, it'd never be put on a motorway.

Funny thing is, if both of these things were to happen, they system would pay for itself in saved infrastructure costs and time saving for road users due to falling demand. Worth remembering that the biggest benefits for Government spending are usually indirect.

deandean wrote: »

My one and only "speeding" fine was for driving at 56 in a 50 zone in Dublin at 6.30am of a
Sunday morning. This was a pure revenue raiser for the government.

6kmh doesn't look like much, but if you hit a pedestrian (which is a big risk in a 50zone), you'll be doing it with 25% harder.

It's much more than a pocket-filler.

gozunda · 11-04-2016 05:58PM

frozenfrozen wrote: »

We were done after you agreed that the text I apparently took out of context was bollox. No need to keep replying trying to be smart.

"I agreed" with whom? Seriously you do know it takes 2 people to agree on something. I pointed that your comment was out of context after you dismissed the main part of what I was saying about cross compliance.

I have no idea what you were on about in the last post tbh. Hence the question marks. Tbh It still makes absolutely no sense. Anyway mind yourself.

pablo128 · 11-04-2016 09:07PM

gozunda wrote: »

Following the "driver theory" test a successful applicant becomes a learner with a learners permit.

Insurance requirements would remain the same for qualified drivers

The current situation with insurance is that you must have a valid licence. To obtain NCT a driver needs to show their insurance. Full Cross complience is only a matter of time.

The nitty gritty is largely irrelevant as there are always exceptions.

You don't need to show insurance in order to obtain an NCT. Just your licence.

Del2005 · 11-04-2016 09:20PM

paddythe goat wrote: »

would like to see much more cctv in all town centres, since cops went off beat on the street many years ago....due to several reasons.....i think more cctv on streets close to banks, post offices....etc etc....would help reduce robberies and personal attacks.....................and keep eye on cars., vans, moving about maybe in places where they should not be.....or maybe they are having a good look with a view to return later to do damage

Look at how well CCTV did for catching the 3rd Brussels airport bomber, everyone knows that CCTV can be defeated by using a hat. Unless there is somebody to act on the CCTV immediately it's useless. All CCTV will do is catch honest people committing misdemeanors, while serious crimes remain unresolved.

Del2005 · 11-04-2016 09:23PM

pablo128 wrote: »

You don't need to show insurance in order to obtain an NCT. Just your licence.

You don't even need a licence, which is a document that you are legally required to carry when driving, you can show your passport. So an uninsured unlicensed driver can drive a failed vehicle away from an NCT.

CiniO · 11-04-2016 09:35PM

JustTheOne wrote: »

What I don't get is idiots putting up on Facebook where speed cameras are, or apps that tell you.

There's hardly any apps that tell you current camera location, but there are indeed apps in some countries, where this works very well.
Any speed check is marked by app users, so everyone else using the app knows instantly that camera is there. I've been using one, and it saved me from being caught many times.

CB radio is good for that as well in places where many people use it and can communicate in relation to speed traps.

Even old fashioned flashing the lights work good.

Any way to save yourself being caught is good and desireable.

In the end of the day, most drivers don't give a sh1t about speed limits and just drive what they think is safe - which very often works good.
Speed traps are only money making rackets... absolutely nothing else.

quadrifoglio verde · 11-04-2016 11:02PM

Del2005 wrote: »

You don't even need a licence, which is a document that you are legally required to carry when driving, you can show your passport. So an uninsured unlicensed driver can drive a failed vehicle away from an NCT.

The nct's job is to test whether the car is 100% roadworthy on the day of test. Not if the person presenting at the test centre is the owner, has insurance or has paid tax.
Just that the car is 100 % roadworthy.
The car can still fail but be safe to drive on the road

Del2005 · 12-04-2016 12:42AM

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The nct's job is to test whether the car is 100% roadworthy on the day of test. Not if the person presenting at the test centre is the owner, has insurance or has paid tax.
Just that the car is 100 % roadworthy.
The car can still fail but be safe to drive on the road

So it's OK for a driver who isn't roadworthy to drive a vehicle to and from a roadworthiness test?

Why don't we have speed cameras everywhere?

Comments