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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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…457910…26

Comments

  • #302
    Damien360
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,602 ✭✭✭Damien360


    ironclaw wrote: »
    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"

    What I am getting at, is there a need to calibrate or is it just certification.

    To explain : I have a multimeter in my car for over 10 years that used to get yearly calibration. Looking at the data, we decided it never changed, therefore we moved the calibration to 3 years. It still has not budged off original values. Therefore the "calibration" is just "certification" and pointless cost. Do we need this certification.

    I realise we have the data above to support this move.

    So, given the accuracy of the guns are 1.5% or +/- 3kmph according to specifications, is there data either produced internationally or by the manufacturers to support a move to zero calibration required.

    If the data exists then the argument ends, but if it does not exist, we are opening a legal chasm and your argument is completely valid.

    There is no need for this data to be supported nationally (doing calibrations in Ireland) as we are specialists in this country at gouging money out for needless projects.


  • #303
    cabledude
    Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭cabledude


    Damien360 wrote: »
    What I am getting at, is there a need to calibrate or is it just certification.

    To explain : I have a multimeter in my car for over 10 years that used to get yearly calibration. Looking at the data, we decided it never changed, therefore we moved the calibration to 3 years. It still has not budged off original values. Therefore the "calibration" is just "certification" and pointless cost. Do we need this certification.

    I realise we have the data above to support this move.

    So, given the accuracy of the guns are 1.5% or +/- 3kmph according to specifications, is there data either produced internationally or by the manufacturers to support a move to zero calibration required.

    If the data exists then the argument ends, but if it does not exist, we are opening a legal chasm and your argument is completely valid.

    There is no need for this data to be supported nationally (doing calibrations in Ireland) as we are specialists in this country at gouging money out for needless projects.
    Most other countries, I understand, have a calibration system in place for their radar guns/units.

    Why is this?

    It is a fact that the Irish law does not require that radar guns to be calibrated. Are we to believe that a) the Irish authorities have sourced a machine that does not need any sort of calibration, ever, no matter how often it is used and abused and b) if so, surely they would have come out and published this data.


  • #304
    Damien360
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,602 ✭✭✭Damien360


    cabledude wrote: »
    Most other countries, I understand, have a calibration system in place for their radar guns/units.

    Why is this?

    It is a fact that the Irish law does not require that radar guns to be calibrated. Are we to believe that a) the Irish authorities have sourced a machine that does not need any sort of calibration, ever, no matter how often it is used and abused and b) if so, surely they would have come out and published this data.

    You are missing my point. Calibration is fine as long as it makes sense scientifically. Calibration for a sticker is pointless. If it needs calibration based on other users data then so be it. If it does not, based on other users data, then save money and do not acquire the sticker.

    As other countries calibrate, what data is available as to the year on year error produced. If negligible then do not calibrate and use the manufacturers specs for stated error.

    This method is used for raw materials in the Pharma industry. The manufacturers cert is accepted based on the data available. No need to retest and certify locally.

    Does the available data support zero calibration or not ?


  • #305
    pa990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭pa990


    Damien360 wrote: »
    You are missing my point. Calibration is fine as long as it makes sense scientifically. Calibration for a sticker is pointless. If it needs calibration based on other users data then so be it. If it does not, based on other users data, then save money and do not acquire the sticker.

    As other countries calibrate, what data is available as to the year on year error produced. If negligible then do not calibrate and use the manufacturers specs for stated error.

    This method is used for raw materials in the Pharma industry. The manufacturers cert is accepted based on the data available. No need to retest and certify locally.

    Does the available data support zero calibration or not ?

    The laser guns are calibrated yearly by teletraffic.
    You can even see the calibration stickers on some of the pics that the gardai put on twitter.
    Everything is calibrated, but the gardai don't have to supply evidence that the unit was calibrated.

    Anyway, there is a possibility that the gosafe vans mentioned in the primetime show, could have under read the speed by 2 km/h.

    But if they over read by 2km/h , and the unit was out by 3km/h as per specs.
    Then someone doing 30km/h could have been clocked at 35km/h , resulting in an unfair fine and points.


  • #306
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    blackwhite wrote: »
    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.
    ironclaw wrote: »
    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.



    Motorists already have their own system of cross-checking. It's called a speedometer.

    As we already know, over 90% of speeding offences recorded by AGS are for speeds 10 km/h or more above the limit. Only a tiny proportion of detections (six in every hundred, according to AGS last year) are of speeds 5-9 km/h over the limit.

    One simple way of circumventing the alleged calibration problem is to drive at or below the posted speed limit, guided by your vehicle's speedometer. This makes the odds work in your favour straight away.

    Let's say you're driving at 45 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. According to the 2013 AGS stats, there is no chance that you will get caught for doing anything up to 54 km/h, while only 6% of motorists would be caught for travelling at 5-9 km/h over. That allows for an imaginary "calibration error" of up to 9 km/h above your actual speed of 45 km/h. In other words, the speed camera miscalibration would always have to be in the region of +10 to +14 km/h for the AGS to unjustly penalise a driver travelling at 45 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.

    We also know that, in 2011 for example, 3 out of 5 motorists exceeded the posted speed limit in urban areas and that 3 in every 4 exceeded the speed limit on 50 km/h urban arterial roads.

    Putting the two together, it is clear that there is only a slim chance of getting caught at all, even with allegedly miscalibrated speed cameras that systematically overestimate the speed by a significant margin in every case.

    Motorists who usually drive at or under the speed limit have nothing to worry about. So who gets worked up about alleged calibration errors? Conspiracy theorists? Pedants? Habitual speeders? Motorists trying to have penalty points revoked?

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


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    pa990 wrote: »
    Anyway, there is a possibility that the gosafe vans mentioned in the primetime show, could have under read the speed by 2 km/h.

    But if they over read by 2km/h , and the unit was out by 3km/h as per specs.
    Then someone doing 30km/h could have been clocked at 35km/h , resulting in an unfair fine and points.



    Why would the GoSafe vans, as mentioned in the Primetime report, have overestimated the speed?


  • #308
    pa990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭pa990


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Why would the GoSafe vans, as mentioned in the Primetime report, have overestimated the speed?

    1) the system is only accurate to within 3km or 1.5%

    2) The exoperator stated that he had no way of measuring if the van was set up in accordance with guidelines

    3) the primetime show stated that the gardai has said that with the incorrect setup, readings would only have been 2km out

    It all adds up.


  • #309
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    pa990 wrote: »
    the primetime show stated that the gardai has said that with the incorrect setup, readings would only have been 2km out

    It all adds up.


    2 km/h out, perhaps, but who said that was added on?


  • #310
    pa990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭pa990


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    2 km/h out, perhaps, but who said that was added on?

    Who said it was taken off.

    The doubt exists because proper procedures weren't followed in some circumstances.

    In certain incidents the speed reading has had doubt cast on the validity of its reading.

    The manufacturers specs for accuracy only apply when correct procedure are employed.

    If the glove doesn't fit , you must acquit.


  • #311
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    pa990 wrote: »
    Who said it was taken off.

    The doubt exists because proper procedures weren't followed in some circumstances.

    In certain incidents the speed reading has had doubt cast on the validity of its reading.

    The manufacturers specs for accuracy only apply when correct procedure are employed.

    If the glove doesn't fit , you must acquit.


    What doubt exactly?

    What was the incorrect procedure, and how would it affect the speed readings in such a way as to give a false positive/overestimate?


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    pa990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭pa990


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What doubt exactly?

    What was the incorrect procedure, and how would it affect the speed readings in such a way as to give a false positive/overestimate?

    I suggest you watch the primetime show.
    Listen to what was said.


  • #313
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    pa990 wrote: »
    I suggest you watch the primetime show.
    Listen to what was said.

    I did and I have.

    And I already asked this question:
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Did anyone spot the flaw in the Primetime report?

    No answers forthcoming yet.


  • #314
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What doubt exactly?

    What was the incorrect procedure, and how would it affect the speed readings in such a way as to give a false positive/overestimate?

    As pa990 said:
    • The system is only accurate to within 3km or 1.5% (As per specs)
    • The Gardai themselves admit it could be off by 2km/h

    I have no idea of the exact probability but error works both ways. Its equally likely, without any evidence to the contrary, that there is chance the system added or subtracted the error. But thats irrelevant. The fact is the system was erroneous. And in a court of law, thats reasonable doubt.

    I'm not trying to get people off here because if calibrated and if correctly set up, those that are speeding will be caught, those who are not will not. However, at present, there is a small grey area that should not exist i.e. Those that are prosecuted when not speeding.

    For instance, we have a car with a calibrated speedo coupled with a GPS readout. Its incredibly accurate. However, at present, if I pass a misaligned van at precisely 50km/h in a 50km/h zone, there is a chance, I could be prosecuted for doing 55km/h (i.e. Worse machine error plus 2km/h alignment error)

    Thats not fair.

    As for the Prime time report, I haven't finished watching but nothing was glaringly wrong in my eyes. Please enlighten us?


  • #315
    lolosaur
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 433 ✭✭lolosaur


    I thought all the fixed cameras were gone.

    Where are they now? i have not seen one in years? sorry, ive not looked at all 11 pages.


  • #316
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    lolosaur wrote: »
    I thought all the fixed cameras were gone.

    Where are they now? i have not seen one in years? sorry, ive not looked at all 11 pages.

    None in operation to my knowledge.


  • #317
    Lardy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 981 ✭✭✭Lardy


    Iwannahurl wrote: »

    And I already asked this question:



    No answers forthcoming yet.

    The bit where they where inside the van in a 50kph zone and the system was set to 30kph?


  • #318
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,964 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Iwannahurl wrote: »

    Motorists who usually drive at or under the speed limit have nothing to worry about. So who gets worked up about alleged calibration errors? Conspiracy theorists? Pedants? Habitual speeders? Motorists trying to have penalty points revoked?

    Incorrect. If the system hasn't been calibrated properly then it's equally possible that it would over-read or under-read. Anyone with even an iota of common sense can see that if something isn't calibrated, then the possiblity of an error could be in either direction - to try and claim otherwise is nothing but blatant trolling.

    If it over-reads a speed, then it's entirely possible that someone driving at, or below, the limit could be incorrectly identified as having been speeding.

    At least try and pretend to debate honestly once in a while :rolleyes:


  • #319
    lolosaur
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 433 ✭✭lolosaur


    ironclaw wrote: »
    None in operation to my knowledge.


    actually, the only one i think i have ever seen is the one that used to be near the spa hotel but i think that is gone nearly 15 years now.


  • #320
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Lardy wrote: »
    The bit where they where inside the van in a 50kph zone and the system was set to 30kph?

    I'm pretty sure that was PR footage from a good while ago to demonstrate the system working and not in relation to what was being discussed.

    Mods, can we split this discussion thread to the main thread?


  • #321
    Lardy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 981 ✭✭✭Lardy


    ironclaw wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that was PR footage from a good while ago to demonstrate the system working and not in relation to what was being discussed.

    Mods, can we split this discussion thread to the main thread?

    That's what I was going to say. It looked like they where just showing the system working.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    pa990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭pa990


    I've stated earlier that with the given specs and the gardai saying that it could have been off by 2km.

    It is within the realm of possibility that it could have over or under registered the speed of passing cars.

    Therein lies the problem.

    It is entirely possible that cars had their correct speed over read, by 2km
    There is also a possibly that the radar system over read by 3km

    It is possible that someone travelling at a speed that under normal operating conditions would not have received a ticket, may have recieved a ticket and points.

    The possibility exists.


    And as for the error in the primetime show, why not enlighten us.
    Or are you taking a stance of
    "If you don't know, I'm not gonna tell"


  • #323
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #324
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Lardy wrote: »
    The bit where they where inside the van in a 50kph zone and the system was set to 30kph?


    I missed that bit, tbh. Whereabouts on the Primetime clip?



    ironclaw wrote: »
    if I pass a misaligned van at precisely 50km/h in a 50km/h zone, there is a chance, I could be prosecuted for doing 55km/h, ... ie machine error plus 2km/h alignment error.
    pa990 wrote: »
    It is entirely possible that cars had their correct speed over read, by 2km
    There is also a possibly that the radar system over read by 3km


    So the 2 km/h error being referred to here (and in relation to Primetime, I assume) is "alignment error"?

    What is the relevance of "alignment" in this context?


  • #325
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Incorrect. If the system hasn't been calibrated properly then it's equally possible that it would over-read or under-read. Anyone with even an iota of common sense can see that if something isn't calibrated, then the possiblity of an error could be in either direction - to try and claim otherwise is nothing but blatant trolling.

    If it over-reads a speed, then it's entirely possible that someone driving at, or below, the limit could be incorrectly identified as having been speeding.

    At least try and pretend to debate honestly once in a while :rolleyes:


    Where is the dishonesty exactly?

    If speed cameras have a built-in +/- random error margin then over time the system will have equal numbers of false positives and false negatives, within that margin of error.

    As we have seen already, last year AGS recorded no detections less than 5 km/h over the posted speed limit.

    The implications of those stats are that (a) motorists travelling at an actual speed <=4 km/h above the limit are not caught, and (b) that motorists travelling at or below the speed limit are not unfairly caught either.

    The reason being that the enforcement tolerances exceed the error margin of the speed cameras.

    Please indicate where the above is not logically consistent with the observed reality, which is that AGS stats from last year showed that nobody was caught for doing less than 5 km/h above the posted limit.


  • #326
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,964 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Where is the dishonesty exactly?

    If speed cameras have a built-in +/- random error margin then over time the system will have equal numbers of false positives and false negatives, within that margin of error.

    As we have seen already, last year AGS recorded no detections less than 5 km/h over the posted speed limit.

    The implications of those stats are that (a) motorists travelling at an actual speed <=4 km/h above the limit are not caught, and (b) that motorists travelling at or below the speed limit are not unfairly caught either.

    The reason being that the enforcement tolerances exceed the error margin of the speed cameras.

    Please indicate where the above is not logically consistent with the observed reality, which is that AGS stats from last year showed that nobody was caught for doing less than 5 km/h above the posted limit.

    If the machines haven't been calibrated correctly how can you be sure that the margin for error actually is +/- 5km/h?

    It could be an error of much greater than that, and without testing there is no way of knowing.

    Under the current laws, a machine could be reading 10km/h over the actual speed and there would be no way to challenge it.

    Do you really believe that there's no way that electronic equipment purchased by the state might ever be faulty?

    The current legislation allows for the possibility that someone could be wrongly convicted of an offense based on faulty equipment, and gives them no means to challenge this.


  • #327
    Lardy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 981 ✭✭✭Lardy


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I missed that bit, tbh. Whereabouts on the Primetime clip?

    At about 6min 18sec into the video.

    I'd like to know why the former operator failed to check his equipment before he left his depot. Schoolboy error for someone who claims to have vast knowledge in security and maintenance. I'd take anything that guy is saying with a pinch of salt to be honest.


  • #328
    pa990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭pa990


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I missed that bit, tbh. Whereabouts on the Primetime clip?




    ?




    So the 2 km/h error being referred to here (and in relation to Primetime, I assume) is "alignment error"?

    What is the relevance of "alignment" in this context?

    Whats the glaring issue that was in the prime time show?
    And what do mean by relvance of alignment..

    Cosine effect I would imagine


  • #329
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #330
    pa990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭pa990


    And cosine effect can be positive or negative.

    So.... iwannahurl... what is your point ?

    Because my point is,
    The operator says that on occasion the equipment to ensure correct setup was either missing or broken.
    That would imply that the ability to follow correct setup procedures, could not be ensured.
    Thus there was no way of knowing if the equipment was under reading, accurately reading or over reading.

    In essence, the data being recorded by the van was of unknown quality.

    Thus such data is unreliable.

    I don't think unreliable information, data or witnesses should be used in any prosecution.

    Do you


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    With respect to everyone involved, its becoming increasingly obvious that there are people here who are interested, people who have good points to make good discussion and people here who have absolutely no technical understanding of the system, electronics and math in question. I'd kindly ask those without such knowledge to admit as such, and bow out as its frustrating for those of us that do.

    To join this debate, you actually have to understand (or at least accept those that do) the concepts of calibration, measurement inaccuracies, the math and science behind speed reading and the overall way it fits into Irish law. I, along with other posters I'm sure, have no issue explaining points and joining a decent debate, but I'm at the end of my tether on this thread.

    In a nutshell, at present, you can be convicted for speeding with no supporting evidence and where evidence exisits, it cannot be challenged. Thats by problem. I don't give a fiddlers if someone is speeding or not. Its the basis that you can convict someone and that someone cannot have due process and review conducted in a court of law, that is my point here.


  • #332
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #333
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I'm not a law expert, but I'd imagine you'd be looking at Supreme Court level as you'd be challenging an Act and setting a precedent / case law. Deep pockets would be the word alright!

    I think the major issue would be points already issued under the scheme. Would they become invalid if the system in place was found to be flawed? No idea myself, thats for the Law forum!


  • #334
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • #335
    Damien360
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,602 ✭✭✭Damien360


    Ironclaw, you are being a little unfair to some posters in your long post.

    Iwannahurl has a point that very few people have got points for being just 5kmph or less away from the speed limit. The 5kmph is the stated possible total error. A simple enforced 5kmph leeway allowed would solve it in an instant.

    I do understand the process and calibrations but clogging up the courts with people arguing every single point is ludicrous. Ultimately the taxpayer will pay for this.

    I regularly travel over the limit on motorways and the older 100kmph roads which are now 80kmph. I still have no points but I will not be arguing 56 in a 50. 52 is a bit harsh and possibly worth arguing in the pub but I do not have the money for court. I am neither rich enough nor poor enough to get a lawyer, I am a taxpayer.


  • #336
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ironclaw wrote: »
    With respect to everyone involved, its becoming increasingly obvious that there are people here who are interested, people who have good points to make good discussion and people here who have absolutely no technical understanding of the system, electronics and math in question. I'd kindly ask those without such knowledge to admit as such, and bow out as its frustrating for those of us that do.

    To join this debate, you actually have to understand (or at least accept those that do) the concepts of calibration, measurement inaccuracies, the math and science behind speed reading and the overall way it fits into Irish law. I, along with other posters I'm sure, have no issue explaining points and joining a decent debate, but I'm at the end of my tether on this thread.


    So would you kindly clarify the relevance of the Cosine Effect in the present context, and explain why it can not be "positive or negative".
    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    Cosine effect.
    pa990 wrote: »
    cosine effect can be positive or negative.


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    pa990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭pa990


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So would you kindly clarify the relevance of the Cosine Effect in the present context, and explain why it can not be "positive or negative".

    Go away

    You are trolling


  • #338
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Damien360 wrote: »
    Iwannahurl has a point that very few people have got points for being just 5kmph or less away from the speed limit. The 5kmph is the stated possible total error. A simple enforced 5kmph leeway allowed would solve it in an instant.


    The potential level of random error has been cited as +/- 3 kph more than once in this thread. According to Garda stats released last year, the enforcement tolerance is greater than that, because there were zero detections <=4 km/h.

    Where the 5 km/h total error seems to have come from is the officially recognised 3 km/h plus 2 km/h plucked out of nowhere.

    Since that extra 2 km/h is, in my opinion, just imaginary, the 5 km/h total error notion becomes a non-issue entirely, also in my opinion.


  • #339
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    pa990 wrote: »
    Go away

    You are trolling


    Nope, just contradicting you with fact. It'll take time, but you'll see the light eventually! :)


  • #340
    pa990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,883 ✭✭✭pa990


    I'm gonna take a self imposed break from this "discussion" , before I say something that the mods will give me a time out for.


  • #341
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Lardy wrote: »
    At about 6min 18sec into the video.

    I'd like to know why the former operator failed to check his equipment before he left his depot. Schoolboy error for someone who claims to have vast knowledge in security and maintenance. I'd take anything that guy is saying with a pinch of salt to be honest.


    Is that where the operator's screen is shown? Unfortunately I can't see it properly, because I haven't replaced my banjaxed graphics cards yet. Is it possible that the shot is for illustration purposes only?

    Good point re checking equipment. Presumably someone has to be the first to drive the van out of the depot on a given day, and the onus would be on that operator to check equipment beforehand. If GoSafe operators are waiting until they're on-site before checking equipment, that sounds like sloppy work practices and poor line management.


  • #343
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    pa990 wrote: »
    I'm gonna take a self imposed break from this "discussion" , before I say something that the mods will give me a time out for.
    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.



    And you won't attempt to deal with the alleged "positive or negative" Cosine Error before you go?


  • #344
    Lardy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 981 ✭✭✭Lardy


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Is that where the operator's screen is shown? Unfortunately I can't see it properly, because I haven't replaced my banjaxed graphics cards yet. Is it possible that the shot is for illustration purposes only?

    Good point re checking equipment. Presumably someone has to be the first to drive the van out of the depot on a given day, and the onus would be on that operator to check equipment beforehand. If GoSafe operators are waiting until they're on-site before checking equipment, that sounds like sloppy work practices and poor line management.

    That's the one.

    Every operator should check the equipment before leaving the depot. The vans run 24/7 365 days a year, so there wouldn't be any one operator in first.


  • #345
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Lardy wrote: »
    Every operator should check the equipment before leaving the depot. The vans run 24/7 365 days a year, so there wouldn't be any one operator in first.


    I'm not going to watch the Primetime report again, but I vaguely recall that the whistleblower referred to taking over the van from another operator, then finding the equipment to be unsatisfactory.

    Maybe each operator was responsible for checking the equipment, but nobody was responsible for actually replacing it.

    In any event, it sounds sloppy, and does not inspire confidence. If it was me in that van I would go mental, because I absolutely hate shoddy work.


  • #346
    Dord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,817 ✭✭✭✭Dord


    One Garda van outside Guinness' on the quays earlier tonight, and another (diff markings) Garda van just past the bus garage on Conyngham Road heading outbound.


  • #347
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    pa990 wrote: »
    cosine effect can be positive or negative.
    ironclaw wrote: »
    To join this debate, you actually have to understand (or at least accept those that do) the concepts of calibration, measurement inaccuracies, the math and science behind speed reading and the overall way it fits into Irish law. I, along with other posters I'm sure, have no issue explaining points and joining a decent debate, but I'm at the end of my tether on this thread.



    It turns out that the OP acknowledged the reality of the Cosine Effect as early as post #9:
    ironclaw wrote: »
    The slip (cosine) effect works in your favor.

    So the Gardai will get a LOWER reading that your actually speed. So if they get a reading of above the speed limit your still speeding.

    ...

    With regards to multiple lanes, your taking a gamble challenging it. These systems are extremely advanced. If they said you were speeding you were speeding. The read out of distance to your car and the photo (If you argue the car beside was speeding) will rule out any discrepancies.

    I wouldn't fight it.



    So why are we still seeing misguided notions about "alignment error" in this "guide"?
    ironclaw wrote: »
    As pa990 said:
    • The system is only accurate to within 3km or 1.5% (As per specs)
    • The Gardai themselves admit it could be off by 2km/h

    I have no idea of the exact probability but error works both ways.

    Its equally likely ... that there is chance the system added or subtracted the error.

    ...

    For instance, we have a car with a calibrated speedo coupled with a GPS readout. Its incredibly accurate. However, at present, if I pass a misaligned van at precisely 50km/h in a 50km/h zone, there is a chance, I could be prosecuted for doing 55km/h (i.e. Worse machine error plus 2km/h alignment error)

    Thats not fair.


  • #348
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Cosine Effect will always be in the motorists favour i.e. The machine will always read lower than the actually speed. Thats a given. Alignment error can refer to the cosine error AND in this specific case, the 22' angle the van MUST be set at. The van already compensates for cosine error IF it is correctly aligned. However IF NOT correctly aligned the cosine error will be incorrectly accounted for.

    DNA or DUI evidence would be inadmissible in court if the machine wasn't calibrated / set up as per procedure. The same is occurring here. We are allowing incorrect procedures to be admitted in court.

    However, two entirely separate and additional issues are:
    • Calibration
    • Inherent Machine Inaccuracy or Error

    So mathematically:

    Your Speed = Machine Reading - Cosine Effect +/- (Calibration Error) +/- (Machine Error)

    So, we know the cosine effect will be fairly negligible at small angles AND if the machine is set up PERFECTLY. However, the machine itself is only accurate to +/3 km/h and frankly if calibration isn't done then you may as well be guessing.

    Iwannahurl, I don't care what AGS have said the detection level they gave are. They are not independently audited and they are conducted with the very machinery were are debating here. Imagine I measured your house with a ruler I made myself. We'd quickly disagree over the size. I have no reason to doubt that the majority of people are pulled for going 'well over' the limit but that isn't my point. My point is the system, at present, cannot be challenged in open court. And that, in a democracy, is wrong.


  • #349
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ironclaw wrote: »
    Alignment error can refer to the cosine error AND in this specific case, the 22' angle the van MUST be set at. The van already compensates for cosine error IF it is correctly aligned. However IF NOT correctly aligned the cosine error will be incorrectly accounted for.


    Are you claiming that, if the already Cosine-adjusted speed camera is not correctly aligned, the speed reading will be an overestimate by as much as 2 km/h?


  • #350
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    What is the "alignment error" you referred to earlier?

    Why would such "alignment error" be added?

    If you set up the van correctly at 22', the cosine effect is negligible (There are other factors that can induce cosine effect) as the machine will compensate for it.

    If you don't set up the van correctly, the cosine effect will still be accounted for but will be incorrect as the van thinks its set up correctly but is not.

    That, in a nutshell, is alignment error.

    In both these cases, it should be in the motorists favour. But once again, let me stress, I'm not arguing cosine error. I'm arguing that incomplete, bodge jog work practises are permissible in open court with no method of redress in addition to no challenge possible of equipment or operator accuracy.


  • #351
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    ironclaw wrote: »
    In both these cases, it should be in the motorists favour. But once again, let me stress, I'm not arguing cosine error.


    What are you saying here then?
    ironclaw wrote: »
    at present, if I pass a misaligned van at precisely 50km/h in a 50km/h zone, there is a chance, I could be prosecuted for doing 55km/h (i.e. Worse machine error plus 2km/h alignment error)


  • Advertisement
Advertisement