Outragous hidden speed camera on the N3

PoleStar

I always find the people who bitch and moan about speed cameras to be quite amusing.

They might aswell come out and say " I speed on a regular basis and I find it quite irritating that I may get caught and be punished ".

Its similar to people who bitch and moan about random breath testing who might aswell say "I drink and drive and put people's lives at risk and I dont care".

The fact is, speed cameras only apply to people that speed. And considering that speed (along with alcohol) i.e. human STUPIDITY is one of the biggest contributors to road traffic accidents, then great.

People go on about placement of speed cameras. And the fact is that yes they are often placed where they will catch people. Why? To change attitudes. Yes it would be great if we could rely on people to drive safely but unfortunately despite any number of tv ad campaigns, people still drive like lunatics. The only way to stop these individuals is to punish them so that they may stop in the future. Unfortunately, like drink driving, the only thing that stops people is a perception that if they speed they will get caught.

To give a personal example of stupidity. Yesterday someone was tailgating me only 2 days after the Naas crash. I stopped the car and approached the female and said in a nice way that she will cause a crash someday. What was the reply? Unless you are a guard f*** off. People like these will never respond to campaigns, they will only learn by use of deterrants.


AGAIN I EMPHASISE: if you dont speed then the speed cameras dont apply to you. I dont speed, I dont care if there are a million speed cameras. And as for people who say " Oh but I might have just popped or drifted up a bit". If you drive a car, you are in charge of a potentially lethal weapon. Its up to you to be aware of your speed etc. If you are not up to that simple task of monitoring your speed then perhaps you should take the bus.

sneakyST

I think they would be better off putting the cameras further down the Navan road when it hits the residential area. The amount of people doing 80-100kmh in the 50 zone in unreal. I dont give a damn if someone does 110kmh in 100kmh zone on a dual carrigeway if conditions permit.

RobAMerc

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Ok, let me put it like this, this morning, I was driving up the road formual know as the N4. I was keeping within the speed limit, maybe going 5kpm over max. I was over taken by loads of cars and here is the shocker, on Continious Double White line and also Hatched Areas. Ok traffic was held up by a tracotr for about 3km, There was no way to pass because traffic was uncomming and it would have been unsafe. The streches of road that have the hatched areas and double white line are because of the number of people killed there over the years.

So to anyone that complains about "Shooting Fish in a Barrel", cop the F**K on and slow down. I do not want you to put my, my wifes, my Son's or anyother member of my family's life at risk.

This is one of the most nonsensical posts I have ever read !
You were actually speeding - but thats ok coz you were going down hill past a bike yet to all the people who overtook on the double white you tell them to "slow down" even though they may not have been speeding!

Just show's how a bit of media pow wow and deflection tactics by the government can be totally swollowed hook line and sinker in this county.

What if the camera had been where you were just passing the bike ?
You'd have been done for speeding while the people overtaking on the white lines will have nothing done to them - who is more in the wrong ?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It's amazing the number of morons coming on here complaining about Speed Cameras. If you obey the law then they are nothing to get high and mighty over. So what if they are hidden - you are not going to notice if you are keeping within the speed limit. So what if they are in high volume areas - you are not going to notice if you are keeping within the speed limit. As for the notion that 110kmh is ok in a 100kmh area if conditions allow - what a muppet! The speed limit is the speed limit. It's idiots who think they are good enough as drivers to exceed the limit safely who cause accidents.

sneakyST

Gwendolyn Helpful Mango wrote:

I As for the notion that 110kmh is ok in a 100kmh area if conditions allow - what a muppet! The speed limit is the speed limit. It's idiots who think they are good enough as drivers to exceed the limit safely who cause accidents.

Well if you cant control a car 10kph over the limit on a dry straight road then you shouldnt be let near a car- i bet you sit in the overtaking lane as well.twat

OldmanMondeo

RobAMerc wrote:

You were actually speeding - but thats ok coz you were going down hill past a bike yet to all the people who overtook on the double white you tell them to "slow down" even though they may not have been speeding!

Yes, I did exceed the speed limit, by a MAX 5kph, infact, I probably went no more than 3kph. I did not overtake on a Double White or in a Hatched area.

RobAMerc wrote:

Just show's how a bit of media pow wow and deflection tactics by the government can be totally swollowed hook line and sinker in this county.

Now that's just pure BS. Please explain this comment.

RobAMerc wrote:

What if the camera had been where you were just passing the bike? You'd have been done for speeding while the people overtaking on the white lines will have nothing done to them - who is more in the wrong ?

Even if there was a camera, I would not have been going fast enough to get a ticket. IOvertaking on double Whites is different to Speeding. There are several junction on this strech and a number of people have been killed over the last few years, this is the reason as to why the double white has been put in place.

RobAMerc wrote:

This is one of the most nonsensical posts I have ever read !

Ditto.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

sneakyST wrote:

Well if you cant(sic) control a car 10kph over the limit on a dry straight road then you shouldnt(sic) be let near a car- i(sic) bet you sit in the overtaking lane as well.twat

There it goes again! The motoring muppet. It's nothing to do with if you or I can control a car at 10kmh over the speed limit. It's all to do with obeying the legal limit. BTW: I use the overtaking lane as prescribed.

sneakyST

Gwendolyn Helpful Mango wrote:

There it goes again! The motoring muppet. It's nothing to do with if you or I can control a car at 10kmh over the speed limit. It's all to do with obeying the legal limit.

I agree but my point was to have the cameras in better places

Gwendolyn Helpful Mango wrote:

BTW: I use the overtaking lane as prescribed

I apologise so

Saruman

I think one of the reasons people complain about the cameras is that its unfair. Take my dad, we were going to athlone one day and he was driving. He drives an automatic and most of the way he was between 80 to 95kmh or so... however we came across one of those idiot motorists who does not just drive slow.. they swerve slightly, hit the brakes speed up.. slow down etc.. my dad got sick of it and over took him and the road started to go down hill again. Anyway for the few seconds he overtook him he speeded up and without realising it he went over the limit, maybe to 110kph and then we noticed the Gatso van.

Now point is, the gatso might not bother with it because they saw what happened. This was the only time he exceeded the limit. However if there was a camera there, especially a hidden camera then all his careful driving goes for nothing because no one on this entire planet obeys the speed limit at all times.. they cant.
I have been in places where there is a 5km/h speed limit.. i mean its not even possible to make the car go that slow as pedestrians break that speed ffs.
So this idea of “If you obey the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about” is rubbish! No one can possibly obey the speed limit at all times.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Saruman wrote:

No one can possibly obey the speed limit at all times.

Remember it's a Limit not a Target.

Stark

Gwendolyn Helpful Mango wrote:

Remember it's a Limit not a Target.

There's a section on the DoE driving test report called "progress on the straight" which begs to differ.

PoleStar

So you overtook someone and may have got a ticket?

So what, if you did tough monkey!

If you choose to break the limit then thats your choice and if caught you must pay the penalty.

Another motorist driving slow is not an indication to speed to overtake.

Just because a 100kph speed limit is there doesnt mean you have to drive at 100kph. Not everyone is in a rush!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

PoleStar wrote:

So you overtook someone and may have got a ticket?

So what, if you did tough monkey!

If you choose to break the limit then thats your choice and if caught you must pay the penalty.

Another motorist driving slow is not an indication to speed to overtake.

Just because a 100kph speed limit is there doesnt mean you have to drive at 100kph. Not everyone is in a rush!

Well said!!

Stark

PoleStar wrote:

Just because a 100kph speed limit is there doesnt mean you have to drive at 100kph. Not everyone is in a rush!

Not everyone uses the roads for a Sunday drive either. I remember leaving myself 3 hours to make a ferry before and taking a route that normally takes 2 hours. It was on a bank holiday weekend and I nearly missed the ferry because I was stuck behind dawdling drivers so many times.

PoleStar wrote:

Another motorist driving slow is not an indication to speed to overtake.

There would be no need to speed when overtaking if people were actually observant when out on their leisurely drives. The RotR cleary state that you must not increase your speed when someone is overtaking you. That doesn't stop idiots from hitting the gas as soon as they see a clear stretch regardless of whether someone is in the middle of an overtaking manouver. Before you take the high ground, overtaking someone is legal when you have a clear stretch and broken white line in the centre of the road. Speeding up when being overtaken is not.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Stark wrote:

There's a section on the DoE driving test report called "progress on the straight" which begs to differ.

There is quite a difference between the driving test criterion of failing to make reasonable progress on the straight and any compulsory requirement to drive at the maximum speed limit permitted in the zone.

Stark

A good driver should be driving close to the speed limit where it's safe to do so. In many countries, you'll be pulled for creating an obstruction if you don't.

PoleStar

And one more thing

I just re-read the title "outrageous HIDDEN camera"


In my opinion they all should be hidden. If you didnt know where and when you were going to have to "slow down" then maybe people would drive within the limits at all times.

How many times have you seen the brake lights on the car in front light up when the speed camera is passed.


I know however that in the UK there was a problem with this when intoduced some years ago as some eejit "clever" lawyer maintained that taking a photo without someones knowledge was not acceptable and people started getting off the hook.

OldmanMondeo

PoleStar wrote:

I know however that in the UK there was a problem with this when intoduced some years ago as some eejit "clever" lawyer maintained that taking a photo without someones knowledge was not acceptable and people started getting off the hook.

there was also something about the camera being hidden and that it was found to be illegal. For what I gather all camera in the UK have to be signposted.

I.S.T.

Stark wrote:

A good driver should be driving close to the speed limit where it's safe to do so. In many countries, you'll be pulled for creating an obstruction if you don't.

That is quite true.

When I was taking driving lessons I was told by the instructor that when doing the test I should drive between 30 & 35mph (but no more than 35) in 30mph zones on main roads (i.e. not in housing estates). He said that if I drive slower than 30mph I will be failed for lack of progress. So I took his advice, driving at between 33 & 35mph in 30 zones. I passed.

PoleStar

I totally agree that a good driver will drive with adequate progress.

And I definitely agree that people that hit the gas when you go to overtake are complete idiots.


Still doesnt make speeding ok. And while the eejit in front of you might be a crap driver and all over the place, thats called tough. If you speed when overtaking and are caught, you are the one breaking the law.

TOUGH.

If you wanna change the law maybe lobby your politician.

Although with the road safety record of irish drivers I dont think you will get very far.

prospect

Haven't read the thread in full, so apologies if someone else has already expressed a similar opinion.

I have said it before on other threads and am going to say it again, I totally disagree with this type of speed camera, and here is why:

1. People are not dying on these main commuter belts due to speed. (I know there was the M7/M9 incident recently but that was due to reckless driving and speed limits or cameras had nothing to do with it).

2. People are dying on our rural and back roads.

3. Every camera installed on large, safe, fast moving commuter routes is a resource that has been assigined to collect revenue.

4. Every camera installed on large, safe, fast moving commuter routes is a resource that has been denied the opportunity to monitor the dangerous rural roads where people are actually dying.

anybody that says that the purpose of these urban cameras is to catch motorists, and that they will reduce their speed overall is very naive. The reality of the issue is that most motorists know of these cameras and adjust their speed when passing, (or are simply stuck in traffic), and too make up lost time they are driving faster on the unmonitored back roads.

So, our governmant are actually making the road deaths issue worse in two main ways.
1. They are holding people up in urban areas by having a high concentration of cameras and poor traffic management, encouraging them to speed on rural roads where there is no enforcement.
2. They are denying the rural 'high risk' areas valuable resources by spending their budget on fish-in-barrell' cameras.

PoleStar

Absolute crap.


Suggesting that the government is encouraging people to speed on rural back roads is nonsense.

What causes people to speed on these roads is:

1. Stupidity

2. Disregard for others

With regard to stupidity, perhaps this is a form of natural selection. How many times do you hear of fatalities with single car accidents: either drink or speed is the cause of these.

And yes I do agree that we should have more cameras in rural areas. However this does not mean that we should not have cameras in high volume areas. And sorry but crashes do happen in these locations.

Keith C

For every 1 camera set up on a motorway, there should be 10 set up in rural areas/blackspots. The revenue from the motorway camera will cover the cost of the rural camera, which in turn will save (hopefully) lives but will not obviously generate cash.
Problem solved, govt get moneymaking camera & also save lives in progress (which is supposodly the whole point!)

PoleStar

100% agree

Plus they should all be hidden

Or perhaps what would be better would be more traffic cops with cameras. This way you would have a reasonable chance of getting caught if speeding but wouldnt know where they were going to be. Maybe this would make people slow down.?

RobAMerc

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Yes, I did exceed the speed limit, by a MAX 5kph, infact, I probably went no more than 3kph.

You were the only person speeding even if by 1kph - yet your shouting "Slow Down" at everyone else.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Now that's just pure BS. Please explain this comment.

if you dont understand it how is it BS ?
My point is you and people here on boards (real motoring enthusiasts :rolleyes: ) are only too happy to support the "Slow Down" rubbish being touted by the government to deflect attention from the terrible roads, attrocious driver training and the fact they are looking to introduce speed tax by putting up cameras wherever they are most likely to generate revenue.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

IOvertaking on double Whites is different to Speeding.

Why are you saying they should slow down so ?

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Ditto.

Brilliant - How can I retort. :rolleyes:

PoleStar

I always find it amusing when I see the issue of crap roads mentioned alongside the slow down message.



Working in the medical profession, I have yet to see a patient come in after a road traffic accident and say to me, the road conditions caused the crash. It is usually young drivers (who speed), sometimes with alcohol on board. And these are the lucky ones that make it to hospital still able to speak.


As for the idea of "speed tax", perhaps a more suitable name then would be a "STUPIDITY tax".

I.S.T.

PoleStar wrote:

How many times do you hear of fatalities with single car accidents: either drink or speed is the cause of these..

Some people believe that a significant amount of these are suicides.

PoleStar

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

Some people believe that a significant amount of these are suicide.

While some of them are probably suicide, most are not.

I was referring to single vehicle, not single driver.

Many of these are single car with a few passengers.

I.S.T.

Aaah ok.

prospect

PoleStar wrote:

Absolute crap

I am sure you mean, that in your OPINION it is crap. I stated that my post was an opinion, and the interests of good debating ettiquette you should do also.

PoleStar wrote:

Suggesting that the government is encouraging people to speed on rural back roads is nonsense

I am not suggesting it, I am stating it. I know of plenty of cretins who admit to speeding on the unmonitored roads because they know they are unmonitored. The governments continued ignorance in relation to this matter is a major factor. (don't tell me the government cant be held partially responsible because if that is the case why bother with any speed cameras at all, or traffic laws, or the traffic corps etc)

PoleStar wrote:

What causes people to speed on these roads is:

1. Stupidity

2. Disregard for others

I agree totally. So lets try an intelligent approach that works, because the current model certainly doesn't

PoleStar wrote:

However this does not mean that we should not have cameras in high volume areas. And sorry but crashes do happen in these locations.

I don't recall saying otherwise.



I hope you never loose a loved one in a traffic accident. But should it happen on a rural road, I would be interested to know your feelings when you find out the hardware that could have prevented it happening is busy collecting €80 of every poor bugger on the M50 doing €125Km/h. (which I agree they shouldn't be doing, but lets sort out the killer drivers first).