irishspeedtraps.com

I.S.T.

gyppo wrote:

I thought you had, you seemed fairly adamant in your post that road safety campaigns were a tarted up form of revenue generation.

I, do however same some figures to base my arguement on:
Based on the 2006 year, 368 fatalities cost the state 839,040000E (bases on an average cost of 2.28M Euro per life lost - http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/News/Mandatory_Alcohol_Testing_Producing_Reduction_in_Road_Deaths.html )

I doubt the monies generated from speed trap fines comes within an asses roar of this figure - perhaps you would care to prove me wrong.

I don't have any figures for the number of speeding fines issued but I suspect you are correct in that the fines raised do not come near the cost of the deaths. However it still makes sense for them to have their speed checks on roads with the heaviest traffic volumes rather than the frequency of serious accidents on that road as this brings in more money.

The location of speed traps is not only about revenue generation though. Speed traps are also used by the Government in a PR exercise as another poster mentioned. They are used to make it seem like something is being done to improve road safety. The more drivers they catch the better their next press release sounds when they mention "x number of drivers speeding in the last month".

I.S.T.

Van Wonderful Leaf wrote:

This "money making racket" routine is wearing a bit thin and doesn't hold water. The revenues from speeding penalties do not come anywhere near covering the cost of the policing involved. That attitude is just nonsense spouted by people who want to be able to break the speedlimit (and the law) as it suits them and to define the speedlimits for themselves.

Oh and warning of mobile units on dangerous stretches of road is not campaigning. I am aware of a dangerous area where a couple of individuals were driving at risky speeds each day at around 6pm. The guards finally came with a mobile unit following complaints by locals and what happens? - that irresponsible site posted a warning! Now come on! Why??

Do you agree that the object of placing a camera on a stretch of road is to get people to slow down? If so, then what is wrong with informing people that the camera is there? In the UK all fixed cameras are painted in bright illuminous colours to make drivers aware of their existance. The locations of mobile cameras is published in advance on the police websites. Do you think the UK police are wrong to do this?

gyppo

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

I don't have any figures for the number of speeding fines issued but I suspect you are correct in that the fines raised do not come near the cost of the deaths. However it still makes sense for them to have their speed checks on roads with the heaviest traffic volumes rather than the frequency of serious accidents on that road as this brings in more money.

The location of speed traps is not only about revenue generation though. Speed traps are also used by the Government in a PR exercise as another poster mentioned. They are used to make it seem like something is being done to improve road safety. The more drivers they catch the better their next press release sounds when they mention "x number of drivers speeding in the last month".

Your sig rings a bit hollow, don't you think?

Steve

gyppo wrote:

368 fatalities cost the state 839,040000E

No it didn't, the state only bears a very small percentage of this.
This report defines the financial implications of a fatality including funeral expenses of the family, insurance payouts, the state's loss of future income tax, the family's loss of earnings etc. It certainly does not mean the state coughs up 2.2mil for every fatality.

Motoring fine income:
2004 €22,705,000
2005 €19,084.000

from here
http://www.finance.gov.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=10&m=f

Edit: Even if the revenue did meet the expense - what has that got to do with anything. I'm sure that all the speeding (tax) fine money is put straight back into road safety just like the road tax, VRT, and fuel excise goes straight into providing safer maintained roads:mad:

MrPudding

gyppo wrote:

I thought you had, you seemed fairly adamant in your post that road safety campaigns were a tarted up form of revenue generation.

Well they are very obviously not about road safety, so collecting money seems to be the only other thing they can be about.

gyppo wrote:

I, do however same some figures to base my arguement on:
Based on the 2006 year, 368 fatalities cost the state 839,040000E (bases on an average cost of 2.28M Euro per life lost - http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/News/Mandatory_Alcohol_Testing_Producing_Reduction_in_Road_Deaths.html )

I doubt the monies generated from speed trap fines comes within an asses roar of this figure - perhaps you would care to prove me wrong.

Oh, my bad. I had not realised that every single death on irish roads was caused by someone breaking the speed limit. I was under the impression that, according to the RSA, only 12% of RTA had speed as the cause. And please bear in mind just because speed was a factor does not mean a speed limit was broken.

MrP

gyppo

Well, if we follow your point of attributing 12% of fatalities as a direct result of excess speed, its still 100 million euro. Thats means a lot of speeding fines to be collected before theres any net gain to be achieved, if speed traps are being used as a revenue generator.
I think not.

~~SKYHIGH~~

I think its a mixed subject really, Both arguments can meet at equal sides.
Being a victim of a letter in the post with a speeding fine has only made me much more aware of my driving. I have 4 points on my license which has made me paranoid even doing 5 kmh over the limit since the second two had been put on. Its like everywhere I go I expect to see a trap around a bend and slow down.

In alot of cases speeding fines have been dropped due to incompetance of the garda operating his detection device. If you read up on how laser hand guns work it will tell you that a shakey hand can give a frightening false reading of your speed. If the Garda twitches and his gun moves abit to the left it could clock you doing 5 or 10kmh more then what you were actually doing. I saw this demonstrated on a youtube video awhile back.
It makes me think that a crooked operator could easily do this and you would
be forced to accept what he says as fact. With recent stories of garda corruption it makes me uneasy to think about that. Although hopefully that
does not happen!:p

Cheerio

MrPudding

Van Wonderful Leaf wrote:

Only for one day and then continued to put the lives of people living on that strtch of road at risk.

This is where we have a major difference in opinion. I don't think breaking the speed limit is inherently fast.

Is that part of road very dangerous? Are they simply speeding or are they driving dangerously? How do you know they are speeding? I have had several experiences where I was going somewhere with friends, in a couple of cars or with me on my bike, and when we arrived they said something like " christ, what speed were you doing?" and the thing was I was not breaking the speed limit at all.

If the section of road you are talking about is dangerous, I would class it as dangerous if there are regular incidents fatal or not, then I think the speed should be enforced by highly visible advertised cameras. This will cause people to actually slow down for the dangerous parts.

And whilst you have never mentioned nailing people doing 130 on the M1 or some other very safe road, that seems to be a favourite tactic. I genuinely believe it does very little if anything for road safety. Most of our deaths are happening because of driver error and happening on country roads.

Speeding is simply a scapegoat for a lazy and incompetent government that has no stomach to do what need to be done. And by the way, revenue generation is just that, generating revenue. The amount the government pays out is irrelevant, revenue is still being generated.

If a speed camera is doing it’s job it will not collect any money, it will slow people down. Getting a €60 fine and 2 penalty points 6 months after you have broken the speed limit is all very well but would be little comfort to the family of the guy you took out going round a corner too fast, don’t you think?

There are a number of issues with drivers in Ireland. Inappropriate speed is definitely one of the problems for some drivers, but I don’t think it is the one that will really bring down the deaths. We have all been on crappy roads, in a long queue do 20 or 30 kph below the speed limit. We have all seen the drivers passing on blind corners, crossing double whites cutting people up. They are the danger. Yes they are going faster than us but are possibly not breaking the speed limit.

There are a couple of things that need to happen in Ireland in order to bring down road deaths. Firstly there has to be better enforcement. Cameras have a place in this but not the way they are currently being used. Cameras are good at getting people to slow down. That is what they should be used for. Place them in dangerous places and advertise them so people know they are there. This will cause people to slow down in the areas where you need them do.

Then get cops out on the road catching dangerous drivers. And by dangerous I am not talking about 130 on the M1 or 80 on the N11, I am talking about actual dangerous driving.

We also need to look at driver education and a general resetting of people’s attitudes. A lot of drivers seem to think their time is more important that anyone else’s. They also have an over inflated opinion of their own driving skill and very seriously under inflated idea of the risks. This is an issue and I think one of the biggest problems.

A major concern that I have is that as the number of cameras increase the government and the gardai become complacent and do not police the roads as actively as they currently do ( and they currently don’t police them enough.) A lot of the areas in the UK that have “Safety Camera Partnerships” have seen increases in road deaths. This is generally attributed to over reliance on cameras, which might make a few quid but, funnily enough, don’t really help with the numbers of road deaths.

MrP

Steve

Agree with you 100% MrP.
Any safety camera that's doing it's job should have zero revenue. Any covert camera can only be there to generate revenue.

I trawled through the NRA site and they claim to be following EU giudelines for camera deployment. I found a document called "SUMMARY AND PUBLICATION OF BEST PRACTICES IN ROAD SAFETY IN THE MEMBER STATES - THEMATIC REPORT: ENFORCEMENT" (sorry lost the link but I still have the pdf).
It deals with a project called SUPREME of which the NRA is a member.

The objective of the SUPREME project is to collect, analyse, summarise and publish best practices in road safety in the Member States of the European Union as well as in Switzerland and Norway, with a view to implementation in as many partner states as possible.

The report then goes into in-depth analysys of the effects of various types of traffic enforcement (cameras - manned & unmanned, breath testing, seat-belt wearing, mobile phones...)

One of the criteria they use to determine what is "best practice" is the cost vs benefit of each approach. i.e. in order for it to be considered for implementation, it must generate revenue.

Here's what is says about speed cameras:

UK:
Enforcement costs, including supporting education, estimated at about £ 96 million. Safety cameras are funded through revenue raised from fines. Estimated value of accident saving are £ 258 million (excluding an allowance for overestimation of accident reduction due to regression to mean). Consequently, the estimated benefit-cost ratio is 2.7.
France:
The annual cost of maintaining the system of 1,500 cameras is approximately 100 million euros. The annual income from speeding fines is approximately 375 million euros. The benefits from the savings in accident costs, which are the main benefits, have not been evaluated yet.
Netherlands:
Annual cost is probably between 2 and 4 million euros. The revenue from the speeding fines in the first year of operation was 7 million euro. There is no information of the savings in accident costs.

The conclusion you can draw is - yes of course the cameras improve safety - but a "handy" side effect is they generate enough revenue to pay for themselves and even make a profit.

Speed cameras are the only enforcement method that are profitable yet they are credited with having one of the lowest effects on reduction of fatalities (compared with breath-testing / seat belts / manned traffic enforcement). The reason they are used is because they are "cost effective".

It can be inferred fron this that if cameras actually worked and stopped people speeding then they would no longer be "cost-effective" and therefore not be used. It would be hard to justify wasting money on them when it could be put towards an approach with better fatality reduction figures.

If your dog chews up your newspaper and you immediately chastise him - he will learn quickly and not do it again. If you wait six months to punish him it will have no effect. Same applies to drivers - many documentaries on UK traffic police are claiming that the most effective method to change a driver's bad habits are to stop and lecture them immediately after they've done something dangerous.

I strongly disagree with the deployment of speed cameras - but it appears we are stuck with them because of the revenue they generate.

Edit: made the post more readable.

MrPudding

The French figures are interest as the French government tries very very hard to make people aware of the camera locations. Interesting.

I have been hanging out with quite a number of UK police officers, the advance driving and riding groups tend to have a lot, most of them are very unhappy with the camera policies and feel it does not add to road safety. I happen to agree with them.

MrP

GTC

MrPudding wrote:

The French figures are interest as the French government tries very very hard to make people aware of the camera locations. Interesting.

I have been hanging out with quite a number of UK police officers, the advance driving and riding groups tend to have a lot, most of them are very unhappy with the camera policies and feel it does not add to road safety. I happen to agree with them.

MrP

Agreed. Figures are more important than lives in this job.

Victor

MrPudding wrote:

Speed cameras in the right place is essential if we want to reduce casualties on the roads. Nailing people doing 130 on the M1 does not reduce road deaths, and anyone who thinks it does is an idiot.

The vast majority of people punished for speeding are doing more than 20km/h faster than the posted limit.

Victor

About the system in the UK being in disrepute. The thing is, our system is nothing like theirs.

stevec wrote:

This report defines the financial implications of a fatality including funeral expenses of the family, insurance payouts, the state's loss of future income tax, the family's loss of earnings etc. It certainly does not mean the state coughs up 2.2mil for every fatality.

It costs society, the state ends up paying for a lot of society's costs.

Hotblack Desiato

Victor wrote:

The vast majority of people punished for speeding are doing more than 20km/h faster than the posted limit.

Source?

MrPudding

Victor wrote:

The vast majority of people punished for speeding are doing more than 20km/h faster than the posted limit.

So? 80kph on the N11? Wow the evilness of it. 140 on the M1? Lock them up and throw away the key.

People breaking the speed limit in built up areas really does my head in. I have no time for that and little sympathy for anyone caught there, especially 20kph over.

The system in the Uk is different from here, but gets the same critisism, it does little for road safety and appears to just collect revenue.

And just a small point for those out there that seem to have a problem with understanding economic terms. Revenue generation is different from profit.

MrP

gyppo

MrPudding wrote:

So? 80kph on the N11? Wow the evilness of it. 140 on the M1? Lock them up and throw away the key.



MrP

I give up:rolleyes:

if the speed limit tomorrow morning was brought up to 200km/h on motorways, people would justify going 220 or more.

At the end of the day, publishing the location of speed camera's will not help to alter the habits of habitual speeders, or those speeders who drive in a reckless manner (by reckless I mean those who overtake on solid white lines, or where there is insufficient room to complete the manouvre) - something I see with regular monotony.

I agree that speed camera's are useful on sections of road where there is a history of accidents - however, its not going to make people drive in a more responsible manner once they know the chance of getting points is passed.

Imo, the only strategy which will work in the short term wrt road safety is the fear of getting caught. There needs to be a very visible garda presence on our roads - which is sadly lacking. There needs to be a mindset instilled within drivers that somewhere around the next corner there is a good chance that the guards will be there, and if they're not there, then the next one. Maybe a bit of paranoia isnt such a bad thing:)

Its not that long ago since the penalty point system was first introduced - everyone thought that the guards were hiding in the next bush - the accident and fatality rates went way down. Until everyone realised the chances of getting caught were slim - ergo, everyone went back to their old ways, and the rest is history. The stats are there to back this up, btw.

Informing people to slow down on a particular portion of road implies -
a) that they were breaking the speed limit in the first instance
b) that they are relatively safe to resume their speed once they have passed this part of road.
At the end of the day, its a cop-out.

RobAMerc

Speed cameras don't work to slow people down, in fact this morning I saw what was almost a big accident as people (already well within the limit) slammed on the brakes to avoid being caught by a Gatso van ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE CARRIAGEWAY ! :mad:

The government trot out stat after stat about how covert cameras do work - while they forget to trot out the stats about how the places where they are most prevalent is also where they generate most cash. They also forget to mention how increasingly the law enforcement officers in locales where they are prevalent are starting to state they don't work and they only way they will work is to highlight their use at known problem spots like outside schools and on dangerous bends.

Steve

RobAMerc - out of interest, where was the speed trap?
Was it on a bad bend with a history of accidents or maybe a dangerous junction where exceeding the posted speed limit has caused crashes recently?

Or were they collecting tax.

RobAMerc

stevec wrote:

Or were they collecting tax.

"Nail on head"

MrPudding

gyppo wrote:

I give up:rolleyes:

if the speed limit tomorrow morning was brought up to 200km/h on motorways, people would justify going 220 or more.

Probably, yes. It seems to be human nature to break the rules.

gyppo wrote:

At the end of the day, publishing the location of speed camera's will not help to alter the habits of habitual speeders, or those speeders who drive in a reckless manner (by reckless I mean those who overtake on solid white lines, or where there is insufficient room to complete the manouvre) - something I see with regular monotony.

Publishing the location of the cameras and making them highly visible will help slow people down in specific areas. I am not sure what you think the readership of the Irishspeedcamera website is but I would hazard that not every person in the country that breaks the speed limit reads it.

Overtaking on solid whites is dangerous at any speed but a camera will only catch someone if they are speeding while they are doing it.

The French go out of their way to publicise the location of speed cameras. There is a specific website where ALL camera locations are listed, it is updated on a very regular basis and is supported by the Gendarmes. The cameras themselves are highly visible and very hard to miss, yet, they still bring in millions.

gyppo wrote:

I agree that speed camera's are useful on sections of road where there is a history of accidents - however, its not going to make people drive in a more responsible manner once they know the chance of getting points is passed.

Again we come down to a fundamental difference of opinion. I don’t necessarily think that breaking the speed limit is always bad. I am pretty ok with someone going a bit over the limit on an open road when it is safe to do so.

I am more concerned with general bad habits, people speeding when it is not safe to do so, overall driving skill and areas where it is not safe to drive anywhere near the speed allowed.

gyppo wrote:

Imo, the only strategy which will work in the short term wrt road safety is the fear of getting caught. There needs to be a very visible garda presence on our roads - which is sadly lacking. There needs to be a mindset instilled within drivers that somewhere around the next corner there is a good chance that the guards will be there, and if they're not there, then the next one. Maybe a bit of paranoia isn’t such a bad thing

Believe it or not I do agree with you. One of the keys to reducing road death is enforcement. I have a problem with how the enforcement is carried out. Our main problem is death on small roads. Not deaths on the N11 or the M1 or countless other large safe roads where we see the gardai again and again and again. What fcuking use is this? People are dying on the country roads. The people you are catching on the N11 might never drive in the country. Do you think young drivers in Donegal are getting in to their cars at 3 in the morning are worried about drivers getting done doing 80 on the N11? Do you think knowing that Sorcha in Blackrock, who has never seen a country road let alone fcuking driven on one, has just caught 2 penalty points is going to make him slow down?

gyppo wrote:

Its not that long ago since the penalty point system was first introduced - everyone thought that the guards were hiding in the next bush - the accident and fatality rates went way down. Until everyone realised the chances of getting caught were slim - ergo, everyone went back to their old ways, and the rest is history. The stats are there to back this up, btw.

Fatality rates lowered, yes. It was most impressive and also most welcome. Why did they lower? They lowered because people were under the mistaken impression that the Irish government were capable of doing something right. They didn’t and the rates rose again. You cannot blame a website where a small fraction of the driving population might have a look for camera locations. And even if they do, it means that whatever else they do they will at least slow down in that area.

gyppo wrote:

Informing people to slow down on a particular portion of road implies -
a) that they were breaking the speed limit in the first instance
b) that they are relatively safe to resume their speed once they have passed this part of road.
At the end of the day, its a cop-out.

it is not a cop out. Deciding that nailing speeders will reduce deaths on the road is a cop out.

I fully accept that speed limits are required. If I was in charge I would probably lower more speed limits than I would raise. I would want a joined up policy where someone speeding a little, where it was reasonably safe to do so on the open roads, is not made out to be public enemy number 1. I would use cameras to shape driver behaviour in areas where speed is a major cause of incidents, forcing drivers to slow down for dangerous corners because there is a highly advertised camera and both ends and drivers know they are there well in advance.

I would have gardai on the move all the time carrying out random speed checks in other areas where there are no cameras, but mostly looking out for dangerous driving, not necessarily speed related. These guys would be highly mobile so posting there location on a website would be of little use when it comes to avoiding them.

MrP

I.S.T.

MrPudding, excellent points. Do you want a job with us?!! lol

gyppo

MrPudding wrote:

Overtaking on solid whites is dangerous at any speed but a camera will only catch someone if they are speeding while they are doing it.

My point was that most if not all people who overtake on a solid white line do so because they are in a hurry, and quite likely to be over the speed limit.

MrPudding wrote:

Again we come down to a fundamental difference of opinion. I don’t necessarily think that breaking the speed limit is always bad. I am pretty ok with someone going a bit over the limit on an open road when it is safe to do so.
I am more concerned with general bad habits, people speeding when it is not safe to do so, overall driving skill and areas where it is not safe to drive anywhere near the speed allowed.

Herein lies the problem - this calls for judgement, something lacking amonst a lot of irish drivers. Some drivers have barely managed the art of sitting on a chair, let alone be capable enough to make a judgement on how fast a safe speed is, and are not skilled enough to react competently when something goes wrong. Many others hugely overestimate their driving skills, to the cost of themselves and innocent people. Hence the need for limits to be applied to all in a fair unequivocal manner to protect us from stupid people.

MrPudding

gyppo wrote:

My point was that most if not all people who overtake on a solid white line do so because they are in a hurry, and quite likely to be over the speed limit.

I do not doubt they are in a hurry. I also believe that someone that crosses double solids is showing a general disregard for the rules and is like to be a danger on the road and is likely to speed in a dangerous way. That said, it is very possible to be overtaking on solid whites and still be well within the speed limit, especially where traffic is stuck behind a slow moving vehicle, where is where this kind of behaviour is most prevalent. Besides the speed is irrelevant, these people should not be on the roads at all and they should be getting done for more than speeding. Getting a dangerous driver of this calibre of the road for speeding is slow and a bit stupid. It is like putting Capone in jail for mail fraud, yes, it did the trick but it wasn’t really what you want. Dangerous drivers should be taken off the road for dangerous driving. They should have dangerous driving endorsements on their license. They should feel it in their wallet when they renew their insurance.

gyppo wrote:

Herein lies the problem - this calls for judgement, something lacking amonst a lot of irish drivers. Some drivers have barely managed the art of sitting on a chair, let alone be capable enough to make a judgement on how fast a safe speed is, and are not skilled enough to react competently when something goes wrong. Many others hugely overestimate their driving skills, to the cost of themselves and innocent people. Hence the need for limits to be applied to all in a fair unequivocal manner to protect us from stupid people.

Of course. This is much easier than trying to educate drivers, isn’t it? Cheaper too. And it still doesn’t really work.

Why don’t we give drivers the skills they need? This lack of skill and judgement has an impact at well below the legal speed limit. There are many road where you can legally travel at 80kph but in reality if you did you would, like many young drivers at 3 in the morning, end up embedded in a tree. Most people instinctively know what is safe and what is not. I know that it is fairly safe to go over the speed limit on the motorway. Here is the UK most people cruise at about 80 or 85mph, I have been in convoys (don’t worry I keep a safe distance) at this speed and overtaken police cars with no problem. Sensible policing.

The point I am trying to make, which you are steadfastly trying not to get, is that a lot of the speeding which is being punished on Irish roads is not that dangerous and punishing people for it does not necessarily improve road safety. Speeding, in and of itself, is not automatically dangerous. There are 3 or 4 things listed in the RSAa own figures that cause more incidents that excessive speed. We don’t hear the gov harping on about what they are doing to combat that.

MrP

siralfalot

oh for gods sake, this thread is just going round and round and round........

I propose speed cameras with strategically mounted missile launchers attached, go past the camera 0.000000001 kph over the limit and you get blown to pieces, there you go, speed kills, instantly :rolleyes:

seriously though, nice one Mr Pudding, I agree

gyppo

MrPudding wrote:

Of course. This is much easier than trying to educate drivers, isn’t it? Cheaper too. And it still doesn’t really work.

Cheaper too - Yes. Faster? - Yes. Driver Education and resulting competence is a utopia that is a long long way off the horizon. What would you suggest should be done in the meantime?
Correct - it doesnt work, but it could. You said so yourself, in response to the point about the introduction of the points system.

MrPudding wrote:

Fatality rates lowered, yes. It was most impressive and also most welcome. Why did they lower? They lowered because people were under the mistaken impression that the Irish government were capable of doing something right. They didn’t and the rates rose again.

They lowered because people were in absolute dread of being caught, getting points, and never being able to afford insurance again. Until we have a nation of educated drivers (whenever that will be), people will die on our roads in the same numbers, unless a draconian policy of enforcement is applied.

MrPudding wrote:

Why don’t we give drivers the skills they need? This lack of skill and judgement has an impact at well below the legal speed limit. There are many road where you can legally travel at 80kph but in reality if you did you would, like many young drivers at 3 in the morning, end up embedded in a tree. Most people instinctively know what is safe and what is not. I know that it is fairly safe to go over the speed limit on the motorway. Here is the UK most people cruise at about 80 or 85mph, I have been in convoys (don’t worry I keep a safe distance) at this speed and overtaken police cars with no problem. Sensible policing.

Agreed. Here we have given drivers full licences without them ever having sat a test. Here we had the situation where a learner driver could take a test of competence, fail it, and still drive away from the test centre. I'm all for driver education, but how long will it take??
Your point about the UK is spot-on, but this is dear old paddyland we're talking about here. Fcuk all driver awareness of others exist in this country, and motorways and their usage is a very new and alien concept to a lot of our indigenous road users.

MrPudding wrote:

The point I am trying to make, which you are steadfastly trying not to get, is that a lot of the speeding which is being punished on Irish roads is not that dangerous and punishing people for it does not necessarily improve road safety. Speeding, in and of itself, is not automatically dangerous. There are 3 or 4 things listed in the RSA's own figures that cause more incidents that excessive speed. We don’t hear the gov harping on about what they are doing to combat that.

The point I am attempting to make, which you resolutely fail to grasp is that upwards of 400 people per year die on our roads, and if clamping down on speeding even reduced this by a moderate amount, then its a very worthwhile exercise. There has been a 23% reduction in road deaths since the introduction of mandatory breath testing - surely a very worthwhile initiative, and a display of what is achievable. Again, cast your mind back to the first few months of the penalty points system.

Victor

Someone was asking which GPS system uses has the garda database it is Speed Nanny www.speednanny.ie

http://www.garda.ie/angarda/statistics98/cpz_June2007.xls

ninja900 wrote: »

Source?

Newspaper article a few months ago. I imagine is was posted here somewhere. [Edit] http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055086271

el diablo

have any of you subscribed to the Safety Camera Database on Irishspeedtraps.com? it's a €35 yearly subscription for Garmin units with free updates.... would like to hear some opinions before subscribing...

daRobot

Yeah, i'd be interested in that subscription service aswell.

D_murph

will there be any facility where you can just download the fixed camera coordinates and not the mobile ones? it could get annoying to listen to it going off every so often when the guards will not be there always. i have seen your site and there are loads of sites there and it could be going off excessively. just a thought.

i hear that there will be lots of new fixed cameras being introduced next year. is this true? these sites would be of more use to know where they are.

I.S.T.

D_murph wrote: »

will there be any facility where you can just download the fixed camera coordinates and not the mobile ones? it could get annoying to listen to it going off every so often when the guards will not be there always. i have seen your site and there are loads of sites there and it could be going off excessively. just a thought.

i hear that there will be lots of new fixed cameras being introduced next year. is this true? these sites would be of more use to know where they are.

That is a good suggestion. At the moment you can only download all cameras but this is an option we will be adding at a later date.

There are 300 fixed cameras and 300 mobile cameras coming as soon as the Government get the finger out and agree a contract with the private operators.