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

903 new safety camera zones

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    firstlight
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭firstlight


    Nothing to do with road safety
    Revenue stream is all
    If they were serious about road safety they would go around the country and fix half the roads that are in bits
    Chunks missing out of tarmac
    Pot holes that would swallow a baby whale


  • Options
    #63
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,871 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Dublinstiofán wrote: »
    Most of them in Dublin City are in 30kph Zones which isn't possible if there is any sort of flow of traffic. Will be like shooting fish in a barrel.
    Yeah, I used to think this way until I realised that I was wrong.
    It us possible to drive within this speed limit and if you can't then don't drive there. There are many other road users there apart from yourself!


  • Options
    #64
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,871 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    firstlight wrote: »
    Nothing to do with road safety
    Revenue stream is all
    If they were serious about road safety they would go around the country and fix half the roads that are in bits
    Chunks missing out of tarmac
    Pot holes that would swallow a baby whale
    Have I understood your post right: they are trying to force people to drive at safe speeds but this is a bad thing because the roads are in a bad way?


  • Options
    #65
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Have I understood your post right: they are trying to force people to drive at safe speeds but this is a bad thing because the roads are in a bad way?

    The faster you drive, the less time on the road, less chance of being in an accident if you arent on the road as long.


  • Options
    #66
    Dublinstiofán
    Registered Users Posts: 2,190 ✭✭✭Dublinstiofán


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Yeah, I used to think this way until I realised that I was wrong.
    It us possible to drive within this speed limit and if you can't then don't drive there. There are many other road users there apart from yourself!

    What made you realise out of curiosity? Penalty points?

    Don’t drive there or don’t get caught there ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    firstlight
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭firstlight


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Have I understood your post right: they are trying to force people to drive at safe speeds but this is a bad thing because the roads are in a bad way?

    Look there s a road I use everyday
    The Cavan road towards Dublin
    Speed drops to 100 from 120 and within 100/200 yards there's a camera
    Catch cars out
    And trucks that might be on the limiter at 88/89
    No change in the road
    Purely there for revenue

    Then the roads that aren't safe they have at 100 kph
    Now you couldn't do that if you tryed because your car would be destroyed from the dips and hollows in the road

    The whole road speed network needs a revision
    Alter speed s on roads that are safe to do so

    Perhaps an altered speed zone on motorways when their clear and empty you can do 150

    Modern cars will happily sit at that speed and be safe


  • Options
    #68
    theguzman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭theguzman


    firstlight wrote: »
    Look there s a road I use everyday
    The Cavan road towards Dublin
    Speed drops to 100 from 120 and within 100/200 yards there's a camera
    Catch cars out
    And trucks that might be on the limiter at 88/89
    No change in the road
    Purely there for revenue

    Then the roads that aren't safe they have at 100 kph
    Now you couldn't do that if you tryed because your car would be destroyed from the dips and hollows in the road

    The whole road speed network needs a revision
    Alter speed s on roads that are safe to do so

    Perhaps an altered speed zone on motorways when their clear and empty you can do 150

    Modern cars will happily sit at that speed and be safe

    Off to Wuhan with you to the Gulag for re-education.


  • Options
    #69
    firstlight
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭firstlight


    theguzman wrote: »
    Off to Wuhan with you to the Gulag for re-education.


    Stay out of the middle lane in your electric milk float


  • Options
    #70
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users Posts: 2,801 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    firstlight wrote: »
    Look there s a road I use everyday
    The Cavan road towards Dublin
    Speed drops to 100 from 120 and within 100/200 yards there's a camera
    Catch cars out
    And trucks that might be on the limiter at 88/89
    No change in the road
    Purely there for revenue

    Then the roads that aren't safe they have at 100 kph
    Now you couldn't do that if you tryed because your car would be destroyed from the dips and hollows in the road

    The whole road speed network needs a revision
    Alter speed s on roads that are safe to do so

    Perhaps an altered speed zone on motorways when their clear and empty you can do 150

    Modern cars will happily sit at that speed and be safe


    I see this said a lot by those who want higher speed limits but what exactly does it mean? Did older cars explode when you hit a certain speed, or what exactly has changed that means it's safer to do 150 km/h in a new car?


  • Options
    #71
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    My take on it is that speed is 1 of a number of factors in an accident so in principle I can see the need for speed cameras and I understand their need in alot of places. However a reasonable number of times, I have seen speed cameras set up at questionable times (quiet hours) and on roads whereby the speed limits seem unnecessarily low.

    This along with the fact that penalty points are now 3 and last 3 years instead of 2 and 2 makes to it reasonably easy to rack up points and god only knows what it will be like to declare them to your insurance.

    I know of people who got done doing 15km/h on an empty dual carriage way at 7am. Situations like this crop up on conversation a fair amount and it does nothing but frustrate the public.

    Speed is easy to measure - this is why they seem to go after it. The whole system now appears draconian, a bit like the "holding a phone offence" while driving. You dont even have to be making a call to get nabbed, but holding a hair brush for example is fine.

    My proposal? Adopt a more subjective approach like in the USA whereby speed traps are always done by a copper (in my experience of driving through 41 states). They seem to allow more slack if roads are quiet and weather is good. In fairness the guards do that here sometimes, but I fear the vans will be less merciful.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    firstlight
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭firstlight


    CrabRevolution wrote: »
    I see this said a lot by those who want higher speed limits but what exactly does it mean? Did older cars explode when you hit a certain speed, or what exactly has changed that means it's safer to do 150 km/h in a new car?

    I mean try doing 150 Kms an hour in a 93 micra
    Plenty of cars able to do that speed
    It was just a figure of speech
    If I didn't say that somebody would have said older cars can't do 150
    You can't win
    If the speed limit was 150 it doesnt mean u have to do it
    More so an option for people who can drive a car at that speed
    It's seem some people struggle with doing 50


  • Options
    #73
    earlytobed
    Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭earlytobed


    firstlight wrote: »
    Nothing to do with road safety
    Revenue stream is all
    If they were serious about road safety they would go around the country and fix half the roads that are in bits
    Chunks missing out of tarmac
    Pot holes that would swallow a baby whale

    But the "Revenue stream" is a myth, Gosafe costs the exchequer close to €10 million a year, I quoted the 2017 figures earlier, Gosafe roughly took in €7 million, but were paid €17 million

    I still hear it all the time

    The theory is that if motorists stuck to the speed limit, the roads would be safer

    You are correct about the state of some roads, though I do remember the 80s when thry were a total joke


  • Options
    #74
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    earlytobed wrote: »
    But the "Revenue stream" is a myth, Gosafe costs the exchequer close to €10 million a year, I quoted the 2017 figures earlier, Gosafe roughly took in €7 million, but were paid €17 million

    I still hear it all the time

    The theory is that if motorists stuck to the speed limit, the roads would be safer

    You are correct about the state of some roads, though I do remember the 80s when thry were a total joke

    It's making money for the owner....


  • Options
    #75
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users Posts: 2,801 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    Should we stop paying Gardaí too? They're making money off the law as well.


  • Options
    #76
    reg114
    Registered Users Posts: 687 ✭✭✭reg114


    Lundstram wrote: »
    Pure greed.

    No more, no less.

    Pure stupidity to break the speed limit, no more no less.

    The irony is hilarious. Folks, the faster you drive, the more costly it is to drive your car. People banging on about the misery inflicted upon drivers who recklessly exceed the legal speed limit, really take the pish and they completely miss the point.

    Forget about the financial penalty, consider your personal safety and that of other road users.


  • Options
    #77
    kirving
    Registered Users Posts: 5,890 ✭✭✭kirving


    earlytobed wrote: »
    But the "Revenue stream" is a myth, Gosafe costs the exchequer close to €10 million a year, I quoted the 2017 figures earlier, Gosafe roughly took in €7 million, but were paid €17 million

    I still hear it all the time

    The theory is that if motorists stuck to the speed limit, the roads would be safer

    You are correct about the state of some roads, though I do remember the 80s when thry were a total joke

    The GoSafe contract costing the exchequer €10M has all the hallmarks of the emperor's new clothes.

    Net Cost ≠ Effectiveness.

    The only reason that the programme costs the state so much, is that some TD realised that they could kill two birds with the one stone. Pay their mate exorbitant amounts of cash, while being able to neuter the "flash for cash" argument.

    €17M per year into targeted Roads Policing operations would go a hell of a lot further than vans.
    CrabRevolution wrote: »
    People seem to want it both ways when it comes to speed vans. The fact they take in money apparently a bad thing. But the fact they operate at a loss overall is also a bad thing?

    Taking in money from people doing 56km/h at 8am on a Sunday morning is a bad thing, yes. Show me the data that proves doing 56km/h results in a greater chance of an accident than 50km/h.

    Of course it's a bad thing. No reason, other than cronyism that they're losing so much money.


  • Options
    #78
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,871 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    Taking in money from people doing 56km/h at 8am on a Sunday morning is a bad thing, yes. Show me the data that proves doing 56km/h results in a greater chance of an accident than 50km/h.
    At that speed, it may not increase the chance of an incident (I don't know!) but it definitley will increase the severity of the impact. The road is presumably 50km/h for a reason (pedestrians, cyclists and other VRUs).
    For example, do you think it's ok to drive at an increased speed in a housing estate?
    Secondly, if you cannot see a big feck off speed camera van with all it's stickers and end up getting caught, etc then you should not be driving at that speed because you sure as hell won't see much else on the road.


  • Options
    #79
    earlytobed
    Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭earlytobed


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    It's making money for the owner....

    Yes, Gosafe makes money (a lot)
    But it's a flat fee, they're not paid per motorist caught, that's another myth


  • Options
    #80
    MaceFace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    The GoSafe contract costing the exchequer €10M has all the hallmarks of the emperor's new clothes.

    Net Cost ≠ Effectiveness.

    The only reason that the programme costs the state so much, is that some TD realised that they could kill two birds with the one stone. Pay their mate exorbitant amounts of cash, while being able to neuter the "flash for cash" argument.

    €17M per year into targeted Roads Policing operations would go a hell of a lot further than vans.



    Taking in money from people doing 56km/h at 8am on a Sunday morning is a bad thing, yes. Show me the data that proves doing 56km/h results in a greater chance of an accident than 50km/h.

    Of course it's a bad thing. No reason, other than cronyism that they're losing so much money.
    firstlight wrote: »
    Nothing to do with road safety
    Revenue stream is all
    If they were serious about road safety they would go around the country and fix half the roads that are in bits
    Chunks missing out of tarmac
    Pot holes that would swallow a baby whale
    punisher5112 wrote: »
    It's making money for the owner....

    I used to get involved in conversations like this, being dragged in and respond to nonsense like the posters above.
    Then Trump came along and his looney supporters with conspiracy theory's, deep state, outright lies, and labeling everything they disagree with as fake news even if it is the most common sense. It's the same right across social media. Someone spouts some nonsense and a reader agrees with the sentiment so take it as fact and repeat the nonsense.

    1. Is there any proof there is cronyism in the award of the GoSafe contract?
    2. Policing the speed limits is a loss making exercise.
    3. There are no incentives to increase the number of motorists caught.

    The same people who complain that the speed limits are low would be the first complaining about motorists speeding outside their house.


  • Options
    #81
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,620 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    I'd encourage everyone to use Wase and to highlight any new speedtraps.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,871 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    I'd encourage everyone to use Wase and to highlight any new speedtraps.
    Why?
    If you can't see a "safety camera van" then you probably won't see the cyclist or the pedestrian or whatever.


  • Options
    #83
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,620 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Why?
    If you can't see a "safety camera van" then you probably won't see the cyclist or the pedestrian or whatever.

    Because it might just help somebody else.


  • Options
    #84
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,871 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    Because it might just help somebody else.
    I refer you back to my second sentence in the previous post.
    Anyhow, I'll get down from my high horse now.


  • Options
    #85
    marcos_94
    Registered Users Posts: 346 ✭✭marcos_94


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Why?
    If you can't see a "safety camera van" then you probably won't see the cyclist or the pedestrian or whatever.

    Im not sure what part of the country you're from but around Dublin, the vans are normally around a bend, or parked in a small spot/gap on the side of the road reasonably hidden from the road so by the time you do see the van, its too late.

    On your point about the difference of 50 kmh and 56 kmh, I completely agree. In ities and towns, but Having speed vans on dual-carriageways and motorways to catch someone doing 125 kmh is to me a waste of that resource. The van or Garda should be more focused in populated areas.


  • Options
    #86
    mikeecho
    Registered Users Posts: 5,043 ✭✭✭mikeecho


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    It's making money for the owner....

    That's the point of any commercial business.

    They have a fixed contract, they know what their operating costs will be, and their profit is pretty much fixed.

    It doesn't matter if they catch 10 times more drivers this week than last week.

    They won't make a cent extra.

    To say that that whole speed camera program is a money maker, is a poor understanding of how the economy works.

    While we're at it . The private contractors who built the motorway.. were they all part of the same money making racket, Heinz ketchup.. shur that's a racket as well.


  • Options
    #87
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    Where have I stated they make more money.

    Are any checks done to see how many vans are on the road?

    It's the biggest waste of money as it isn't catching dangerous drivers.

    You have to be within less then a 100 metres of the van to be caught...

    Look at N11 where speed limit was 40mph, it's now 37mph so doing 65km/h on it would be like it was but no you mustn't do them extra few km/h


  • Options
    #88
    mikeecho
    Registered Users Posts: 5,043 ✭✭✭mikeecho


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    Where have I stated they make more money.
    The meet fact that in a thread discussing the increase in speed zones, you mention that is a money making racket
    punisher5112 wrote: »
    Are any checks done to see how many vans are on the road?

    Not sure what you mean.
    The Gardai contract GoSafe for X no of hours, and the Gardai stipulate when,where and how long each stint will be.
    punisher5112 wrote: »
    It's the biggest waste of money as it isn't catching dangerous drivers.

    You have to be within less then a 100 metres of the van to be caught...

    Well if someone is over the speed limit and can't see a van in under 100m , maybe that driver is a danger.
    punisher5112 wrote: »
    Look at N11 where speed limit was 40mph, it's now 37mph so doing 65km/h on it would be like it was but no you mustn't do them extra few km/h

    I'll have a look, next time I'm passing.

    Plenty of roads were 30mph, now 50km that's 31mph
    And then the 60mph zones, there's now 100km , that's 62mph
    And what about the 70mph motorways, up to 120km/ 75mph.

    Don't hear you complaining about that.


  • Options
    #89
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,871 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    It's the biggest waste of money as it isn't catching dangerous drivers.
    So who is it catching?
    punisher5112 wrote: »
    You have to be within less then a 100 metres of the van to be caught...
    But other people say that it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Either it's easy to not get caught or it's not?!?!
    Anyhow, it will catch people who are speeding and inattentive which is good! :)
    punisher5112 wrote: »
    Look at N11 where speed limit was 40mph, it's now 37mph so doing 65km/h on it would be like it was but no you mustn't do them extra few km/h
    We don't have anywhere that has speed limits in mph!

    However, pedantry aside, the majority of our roads had an increase in their effective speed limit when we went metric. Have you an issue with that?


  • Options
    #90
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,386 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    It's actually laughable to be honest.....

    The state are going mad to privatise everything and in the end it ends up costing way more.
    Way more than what? How much would it cost to run this service with Gardai?
    earlytobed wrote: »
    Gosafe make lots of money, but at a cost to the taxpayer

    The consortium was paid €17.27million in 2017, of which €7.5million was recouped for the Exchequer through fines paid by motorists.

    Operating at a €10 million loss
    Or roughly that's two schools not being built each year because motorists won't get near to obeying traffic laws without this threat of being caught.
    punisher5112 wrote: »

    Texting, watching videos, plating games, social media etc on phone is only a €60 fine..... That's so wrong.
    True, though the 3 penalty points are the real kicker.

    Scarily enough, watching videos is not actually illegal here, unlike the UK, if they're not holding or supporting the phone in their hand.
    Dublinstiofán wrote: »
    I read this morning that they are also taking down the ‘speed camera zone’ signs and replacing them with speed limit signs to really **** you over too! The odd time you’d see the speed camera sign and it would remind you to check your speed. Now they’re just out to get you!
    It seems like you've missed the purpose of the speed limit signs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    kirving
    Registered Users Posts: 5,890 ✭✭✭kirving


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    At that speed, it may not increase the chance of an incident (I don't know!) but it definitley will increase the severity of the impact. The road is presumably 50km/h for a reason (pedestrians, cyclists and other VRUs).
    For example, do you think it's ok to drive at an increased speed in a housing estate?
    Secondly, if you cannot see a big feck off speed camera van with all it's stickers and end up getting caught, etc then you should not be driving at that speed because you sure as hell won't see much else on the road.

    I'm not anti speed camera, but I have a big issue with their implementation. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the RSA to justify how our money is spent, and I've yet to see any data to show that 56km/h is actually more dangerous than 50km/h, all variables considered. The reason I'm picking these out is because of the hundred of kilometers I drive every week, the only place I see cameras are in 50km/h zones.

    It's far more complex than more speed = more danger, and I'd like to see that reflected in our roads policing.

    In fact, if I had my way, I'd have average speed cameras on all busy motorways, and on selected N and R roads nationwide. I would be in favour of on the spot bans (and taking the car for the duration) for people who take the mick on offenes like YouTube or seatbelts.

    You know as well as I do that they park in locations where they're difficult to be seen, behind walls in particular.
    MaceFace wrote: »
    I used to get involved in conversations like this, being dragged in and respond to nonsense like the posters above.
    Then Trump came along and his looney supporters with conspiracy theory's, deep state, outright lies, and labeling everything they disagree with as fake news even if it is the most common sense. It's the same right across social media. Someone spouts some nonsense and a reader agrees with the sentiment so take it as fact and repeat the nonsense.

    1. Is there any proof there is cronyism in the award of the GoSafe contract?
    2. Policing the speed limits is a loss making exercise.
    3. There are no incentives to increase the number of motorists caught.

    The same people who complain that the speed limits are low would be the first complaining about motorists speeding outside their house.

    All I asked was for some data to show their effectiveness in reducing road deaths, and you somehow bring Trump into it.

    1. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I'm not sure what else it can be. I'm not normally a Daily Mail reader, but this highlights GoSafe's political links.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333766/Speed-camera-tycoon-Xavier-McAuliffe-caught-speeding-twice-week.html

    2.
    Measuring somethings effectiveness by how much money it costs is an interesting way of doing it. "Hey Joe Public, look how much of your money we're spending in order to make our roads safer."

    Refuting the "flash for cash" argument by stating that they're loss making, assumes that we're getting absolutely the best possible value for money.

    The Children's Hospital, Broadband plan, National Stadium, Luas, MetroLink to name but a few recent state contracts, would indicate a pattern of the state blindly overspending, in an effort to show some kind of progress in each.

    Given the cost, I'd much prefer to see comprehensive data to show their effectiveness, that isn't collated together with safer cars, better roads, etc.

    3. Not directly no, but the contract is far harder to justify at renewal time if the net cost increases.


Advertisement