Outragous hidden speed camera on the N3

Mr. Presentable

I think

a) Speed cameras are a poor idea

b) They won't be a problem if you obey the limit

c) We should all have tachometers installed in our cars, for review in case of accident and when getting your NCT

d) I'm probably a b**t**d at heart

PoleStar

prospect wrote:

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.

Actually you did say it, just here in fact. Unless you have misworded it.

Stark

PoleStar wrote:

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.

Whatever the law might say about speeding, you're within your rights as a motorist to overtake someone who's impeding your progress. Coupled with your right to overtake is your responsibility to do it safely if/when you choose to do so. By far the most dangerous aspect of overtaking is the time you spend on the wrong side of the road. If you're overtaking on a single lane carriageway, the safest way to do it as quickly as possible and that means temporarily disregarding the speed limit for the duration of the maneuver. I would consider someone who spends 10 seconds overtaking at 110km/hr to be safer than someone who spends 20 seconds overtaking at 100km/hr.

Of course, that's probably irrelevant to the camera discussion as the cameras will probably be focused on the left lane.

prospect

PoleStar wrote:

Actually you did say it, just here in fact. Unless you have misworded it.

Well, I agree it may be worded poorly, however it doesn't say get rid of them all, it just points out their real reason for existance.


The impression I get from your posts is that you are relying on peoples good behaviour on the roads, and that if they get caught speeding once (even if it is only bareky over the limit) than they will learn by their mistake.

Unfortuantely, this is not the case. Human nature does not work that way. In reality person would be irked by this and loose a degree of respect for the system.
People will speed if they know they wont be caught. Currently this is the rural and back roads of ireland, and interstingly this is where the fatal accidents happen. This is where the majority of the effort should be concentrated.

By the same rationale, it is no coincidence that the majority of deaths happen in the border regions. As Northern drivers speed in the south, and vice versa, because they know they can't be caught/prosecuted.

PoleStar

prospect wrote:

The impression I get from your posts is that you are relying on peoples good behaviour on the roads, and that if they get caught speeding once (even if it is only bareky over the limit) than they will learn by their mistake.

Unfortuantely, this is not the case. QUOTE]

You may not have read all my posts and I forgive you!

I have stated the exact opposite, and more in agreement with what you have just said. However some differences.

I have said before that we cannot rely on people to drive safely, and no safety advertising campaign will achieve safe driving. Its like smoking. You would have to have an IQ of 5 or less not to realise smoking is bad for you and yet still 1 in 4 people smoke! There will always be idiots out there who speed and have disregard for others.

The only way is to change peoples perceptions from an "Ill never get caught" to an "I will get caught if I speed" perception. If this is achieved, then the deterrant to speeding i.e. fines will begin to have an effect. The way to achieve this is more speed cameras or else mobile units. And while I agree the current lack of cameras in rural locations is deplorable, it doesnt mean we shouldnt have them in high volume areas.

unkel

sneakyST wrote:

twat

Less of that. You're warned, sneakyST

_Kaiser_

Ah as usual when this comes up, certain posters come out with the usual "speed kills", "no excuse" statements. A very naive view that doesn't work in the real world.

As was proven on the N/M7 this week, it's not speeding that is the problem.. it's driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions (where conditions = weather, traffic volume, road surface, visibility etc).

Erecting more speed cameras on wide, straight dual-carriageways/motorways, or Gardai camped out at the bottom of hills on the same roads is an exercise in revenue generation, pure and simple.

You can stick your head in the sand about it all you like, but it's the narrow, poorly surfaced back roads (take for example the Blanch-Finglas road) that are posted with ridiculous limits (80km/h in this example) that are the biggest cause of death's on the roads. By some people's reasoning, I would be perfectly entitled to drive that road at the posted speed as I'm not actually breaking the limit of the road, however this rather simplistic view fails to take into account the fact that to do so given the above other conditions would be far more dangerous.

The problems on our roads are a bit more complex that some people are making out, namely:
- totally inadequate driver training and testing
- radically differing road quality, even on the same stretch of (national) road, depending on which county council owns it
- inconsistent enforcement by the Gardai (the "it depends who you get" phenomenon).
- roads being signed at limits totally inappropriate for the conditions (both too high, AND too low).

That's what the government/Gardai should be tackling.. not taking the usual easy option of generating stats and money, whilst then pointing to how well it's all working.

The reality is somewhat different I'm afraid...

Wibbs

PoleStar wrote:

Absolute crap.

Yep. Good point well argued.

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

Well it's obviously not discouraging them if the death rates on those roads are anything to go by. Now that Mr Cullen is involved rural speeders will probably get grants.

And sorry but crashes do happen in these locations.

Very few. I'm sorry the fact remains that if I want to drive "positively", I know where I can do it with very very little chance of ever being caught. Now where do most of those deaths occur? Hmmmmm.

Do not get me started on the sadness that is the speed limits themselves in this country. The N11 is a classic. You can go from 60 to 120 back to 60 etc with no rhyme or reason as to why. Where some rural roads posted at 80 you would be mad to go above 50/60 in places.

Wibbs

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Ah as usual when this comes up, certain posters come out with the usual "speed kills", "no excuse" statements. A very simplistic view that doesn't work in the real world.

As was proven on the N/M7 this week, it's not speeding that is the problem.. it's driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions (where conditions = weather, traffic volume, road surface, visibility etc).

Erecting more speed cameras on wide, straight dual-carriageways/motorways, or Gardai camped out at the bottom of hills on the same roads is an exercise in revenue generation, pure and simple.

You can stick your head in the sand about it all you like, but it's the narrow, poorly surfaced back roads (take for example the Blanch-Finglas road) that are posted with ridiculous limits (80km/h in this example) that are the biggest cause of death's on the roads. By some people's reasoning, I would be perfectly entitled to drive that road at the posted speed as I'm not actually breaking the limit of the road, however this rather simplistic view fails to take into account the fact that to do so given the above other conditions would be far more dangerous.

The problems on our roads are a bit more complex that some people are making out, namely:
- totally inadequate driver training and testing
- radically differing road quality, even on the same stretch of (national) road, depending on which county council owns it
- inconsistent enforcement by the Gardai (the "it depends who you get" phenomenon).
- roads being signed at limits totally inappropriate for the conditions (both too high, AND too low).

That's what the government/Gardai should be tackling.. not taking the usual easy option of generating stats and money, whilst then pointing to how well it's all working.

The reality is somewhat different I'm afraid...

QFT. Nail on the head.

Stark

Does anyone know if the cameras in the UK are actually effective? I was up in the North last weekend and I noticed that our car seemed to be one of very few cars doing the speed limit despite there being cameras all the over the place and quite a few of those "average speed" cameras. There were cars with NI plates constantly whizzing past us.

GreeBo

Am I the only sane person on here who thinks the put cameras on the roads that people speed on?

The point is to control people driving habits. More people use the N3 than drive up to Kilmashogue for example.

It is not impossible to drive to the speed limit, it might be annoying and seem insane to you but guess what, its not up to you.

As for the "if you cant control your car at 10kph over the speed limit" comment.
Enlighten me, whats the difference in stopping distance required between 100kph and 110kph?

Should Michael Schumacher be allowed to drive at 200kph on the M50 becuase he can control his car at that speed? Its an idiotic suggestion.

Giving out about the fact that they make money from cameras is akin to complaining that traffic wardens patrol around traffic meters.

astraboy

Kaiser2000 wrote:

Ah as usual when this comes up, certain posters come out with the usual "speed kills", "no excuse" statements. A very naive view that doesn't work in the real world.

As was proven on the N/M7 this week, it's not speeding that is the problem.. it's driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions (where conditions = weather, traffic volume, road surface, visibility etc).

Erecting more speed cameras on wide, straight dual-carriageways/motorways, or Gardai camped out at the bottom of hills on the same roads is an exercise in revenue generation, pure and simple.

You can stick your head in the sand about it all you like, but it's the narrow, poorly surfaced back roads (take for example the Blanch-Finglas road) that are posted with ridiculous limits (80km/h in this example) that are the biggest cause of death's on the roads. By some people's reasoning, I would be perfectly entitled to drive that road at the posted speed as I'm not actually breaking the limit of the road, however this rather simplistic view fails to take into account the fact that to do so given the above other conditions would be far more dangerous.

The problems on our roads are a bit more complex that some people are making out, namely:
- totally inadequate driver training and testing
- radically differing road quality, even on the same stretch of (national) road, depending on which county council owns it
- inconsistent enforcement by the Gardai (the "it depends who you get" phenomenon).
- roads being signed at limits totally inappropriate for the conditions (both too high, AND too low).

That's what the government/Gardai should be tackling.. not taking the usual easy option of generating stats and money, whilst then pointing to how well it's all working.

The reality is somewhat different I'm afraid...

Agree 100%.

I'm glad to see the "there would'nt be a problem if you obeyed the speed limits" high horse brigade are out in force in this thread today.

People never seem to consider that speed limits are made up in offices around the country, but they do not adjust for weather conditions, traffic or the type of car you are driving. People think its ok to sit at 100Kph at all times yet an absolutely outrageous crime to drive over the limit, even though it may be safe to do so on certain stretches of road. I choose a speed that is relevant to my car, the road conditions and weather and believe if people did this it would reduce accidents, as people would slow down when needed and progress at a proper pace when allowed. Speed limits are not the be all and end all of road safety, driver training and driver awareness would do far more to reduce road accidents.

kyote00

oh dear. I for one am not an idiot (your implication).

I cover about 50k miles a year around Ireland and have seen some truely idiotic driving. I drive this stretch of the N3 most days and it is among the worst road for speed and dangerous driving. The N3 is intersected on the left and right by many busy tributary roads (e.g trim road).
I see at least one accident a week between blanch part of N3 and out past Navan

With respect to your quote about research, please don't quote 'research' without a link to it or reference that can be checked because that is truly the sign of an idiot. Perhaps it's your own research:rolleyes:

VeVeX wrote:

This is the bullsh1t attitude that is prevalent amongst the idiots that accept speed cameras on safe stretches of road.

There has never been an accident in my recollection on that stretch of road in recent times. There are a hell of alot more dangerous stretches of road to implement speed cameras then this. This road is by nature an easy target as it is relatively straight and most of the time bar mornings free from heavy traffic.

Speed cameras should only be accepted by the motoring public in areas of high accident rates ie Black Spots. A camera placed in a spot like this is without doubt a revenue machine and will not prevent or curtail the current carnage and extremely poor driving on our roads in this country.

There is no argument that speed cameras are effective in preventing accidents and there is research which suggests that hidden devices have a greater impact than visible ones in reducing speed but placing cameras on roads that have little or no accidents is purely a revenue generating racket.

VeVeX

kyote00 wrote:

With respect to your quote about research, please don't quote 'research' without a link to it or reference that can be checked because that is truly the sign of an idiot. Perhaps it's your own research:rolleyes:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7346/1153/a

http://www.peterharris.org.uk/roadsafety/camera.pdf

Page 86 (f)

The primary purpose of cameras is to achieve speed reduction of vehicles on stretches
of road with a known speed-related accident problem. One frequent result is manipulating
behaviour, encouraged by camera warning signs along the road in question. Manipulation of
cameras can lead to a 'concertina' effect, but research so far has found no adverse
consequences of this for accident figures (LAAU 1997). The secondary purpose of cameras is
to achieve speed reductions generally among drivers, which may prove more difficult although
our results on generalised effects are hopeful. Undermining drivers' confidence in knowing the
whereabouts of fixed-site cameras not only might reduce the incidence of 'braking and
accelerating', but also might bring about lower speeds generally, as indicated by some
manipulators and defiers who said they behaved as 'deterred' on other (perhaps less familiar)
camera-signed roads. A policy of reducing the visibility of roadside camera installations
is recommended, and linking with (b) above, a policy of combined speed limit and
camera warning signs in the target area is recommended. Some police forces and local
authorities have already instituted a policy of widespread coverage by repeater signs in the
target area. Signs are considerably cheaper than camera installations, and provided nearby
there is some degree of objective risk, our study like others suggests that subjective risk will
follow.

kyote00 wrote:

I drive this stretch of the N3 most days and it is among the worst road for speed and dangerous driving. The N3 is intersected on the left and right by many busy tributary roads (e.g trim road).
I see at least one accident a week between blanch part of N3 and out past Navan

Read the first post again. This thread is about a camera on a turn for mulhuddart on the N3 not beside the trim road or
a debate on the entire stretch between blachardstown and navan.

netwhizkid

Private Speed Cameras =



See my signature for details on this and more illegal privatisation by our "Soldiers of Destiny".

Seth Brundle

VeVeX wrote:

There has never been an accident in my recollection on that stretch of road in recent times.

My father was driving down the N3 a few years back and a driver coming down a slip road clipped the car in front of him which sent it heading onto the grass beside the hard shoulder. The car that caused the incident ended up going airborne and landed on the hedge in the middle (what gobshíte thought that a hedge would be a good idea?) and eventually stopped on the opposite carriageway. The oncoming artic barely managed to stop in time! In fairness it was speed and lack of observation that caused it!

PoleStar wrote:

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.

So you prefer punitive enforcement rather than preventative enforcement methods? Surely its better to encourage people to slow down at these alleged dangerous spots rather then punishing them weeks or months afterwards?
The fact that people brake comes down to bad driving - most people braking in my experience are already under the limit!

Saruman

Having hidden cameras everywhere will create so much paranoia that people will be hitting the brakes every few mins just in case there is a camera..
As has been pointed out before penty of times.. not only are speed limits in this country randomly chosen with no regard for safety... they are a lot of the time not even signed so Mr high and mighty who wants hidden cameras and thinks i you go above the limit at any time you deserve to get caught.. just wait till you come get done on a stretch of road from your hidden camera and no sign letting you know that the limit is less than you are driving at.
i.e. limit of 50kph on a 3 lane dual carriageway while mr speed racer on his narrow country lane can legally drive at up to 80kph with no fear of getting caught by a hidden camera because im not breaking the law.

Seth Brundle

Incidentally my sister was telling me tonight hos she was done recently on Dublin's Alfie Byrne road. Seemingly she was well over the limit but the garda came out with the line that he was doing her because it was a 'residential area'.

PoleStar

People recurrently say that what we need is proper education of drivers so that overall standards are improved, and increased awareness that speed kills and good driving abilities.

However this unfortunately will never work.

The example I gave already was smoking. People are well aware that smoking kills and yet many do it. 1 in 4 in fact! And the fact that smoking kills has been common public knowledge for years.

People know that speed is a major contriibutor to road fatalities and yet they still drive with inapprorpriate speed. I have ssen many posts stating that speed below the speed limit can still cause a crash as exemplified by the pile up in naas a few days ago.

So what does the government do?

The only way to get people to change attitudes is to beat it into them, as obviously people arent intelligent enough to decide themselves that speeding kills. Unfortunately the only way to acheive this, in a limited fashion albeit, is by blanket speed limits and speed cameras, thus resulting in the commoners perception hopefully, that if they speed they will be punished. This hopefully will result in people slowing a bit. While this may result in people that are driving with care, but over the limit, being punished, this is hopefully a smalle price to pay. I dont speed. I dont plan on doing it. I dont care if they put up a million cameras or install a tachometer in my car. It doesnt apply to me. If you dont wanna get caught, dont speed.


For all you people out there waffling on about how education of drivers etc. This aint gonna work. Do you really think explaining to some skanger in a boy racer car that encountering a tree at 90 mph is not a good idea, is gonna make him stop and go to mass instead? If so then you need help. The only way to stop people like this is deterrants.

astraboy

PoleStar wrote:

People recurrently say that what we need is proper education of drivers so that overall standards are improved, and increased awareness that speed kills and good driving abilities.

However this unfortunately will never work.

For all you people out there waffling on about how education of drivers etc. This aint gonna work. Do you really think explaining to some skanger in a boy racer car that encountering a tree at 90 mph is not a good idea, is gonna make him stop and go to mass instead? If so then you need help. The only way to stop people like this is deterrants.

Ya, shar why bother going to all the expense and hassel of educating drivers and training them to an acceptable standard, it might save lives in the long run but why do what other countries do when we can place blanket limits on roads, tell people its ok to drive at that speed and make a mint when they go over it by using speed cameras on large straight stretches of road. :rolleyes:

Lets just beat it into drivers instead, and why not take them for some cash as well because the Irish motorist hardly pays his fair share now does he(VRT, VAT, excise duty anyone?)

Love the stereotype of the "boy racer" too. I bet you scowl at anyone in a modified car. Because older drivers in saloons never speed.:rolleyes:

By the way, in the UK all cameras need warning signs. They have also found serious diminishing marginal returns on the reduction of accidents as they increase the no. of cameras.

Sandwich

tuxy wrote:

Of course. But the question being asked is why have speed cameras that are not for the purpose of making driving safer in this country?

The cameras that are most effective at making driving safer in this country are those which catch the greatest numbers of speeders - not the ones whcih catch speeding on 'dangerous' stretches.

The prevalence of speeding is directly linked to the perceived risk of being caught. The more people are caught (on whatever type of road) the higher the risk of being caught is rated (through personal experience, hearsay, seeing others being caught, Garda or speedo visibility etc).

So to 'encourage' people to slow down it sound like the one mentioned above is very well chosen.

overdriver

PoleStar wrote:

People recurrently say that what we need is proper education of drivers so that overall standards are improved, and increased awareness that speed kills and good driving abilities.

However this unfortunately will never work.

The example I gave already was smoking. People are well aware that smoking kills and yet many do it. 1 in 4 in fact! And the fact that smoking kills has been common public knowledge for years.

People know that speed is a major contriibutor to road fatalities and yet they still drive with inapprorpriate speed. I have ssen many posts stating that speed below the speed limit can still cause a crash as exemplified by the pile up in naas a few days ago.

So what does the government do?

The only way to get people to change attitudes is to beat it into them, as obviously people arent intelligent enough to decide themselves that speeding kills. Unfortunately the only way to acheive this, in a limited fashion albeit, is by blanket speed limits and speed cameras, thus resulting in the commoners perception hopefully, that if they speed they will be punished. This hopefully will result in people slowing a bit. While this may result in people that are driving with care, but over the limit, being punished, this is hopefully a smalle price to pay. I dont speed. I dont plan on doing it. I dont care if they put up a million cameras or install a tachometer in my car. It doesnt apply to me. If you dont wanna get caught, dont speed.


For all you people out there waffling on about how education of drivers etc. This aint gonna work. Do you really think explaining to some skanger in a boy racer car that encountering a tree at 90 mph is not a good idea, is gonna make him stop and go to mass instead? If so then you need help. The only way to stop people like this is deterrants.

Lots of good points there, but there is an underlying cynicism there on the government's part. If it was about safety, there's be no fine, just points. The M50 cameras are being moved to create revenue, as well as protect the workers. (The amount of night-time work carried out is minimal, by the way).

Do we really believe private companies are going to invest in cameras to increase safety? These fools in power have learned nothing from their own mistakes or those of the UK. Watch and learn as the thresholds for speeding offences are ratcheted down, and where limits that are so low they are unsafe are policed heavily, and regular, safe drivers get done for increasingly small margins of error.

For instance, on the way from Dublin to Athlone last week, there were signs up for roadworks with a 30 kph limit, Garda speed camera enforced. How they expect anyone to come down from 100 kph to 30, and not get killed by traffic behind (who are more familiar with the road and know if the limit is enforced or not), is beyond me. The 30 kph limit was unwarranted, as there were no night-time or Sunday works there, and the width and condition of the road were not overly compromised.


Also if they were serious, the limit would end after the roadworks, and not ages afterward.

It is about revenue. the safety aspect is the wedge to drive it in. much the same way that bin-charges were supposed to protect the environment, when in fact, they fund local government.

Seth Brundle

Sandwich wrote:

The cameras that are most effective at making driving safer in this country are those which catch the greatest numbers of speeders - not the ones whcih catch speeding on 'dangerous' stretches.

Actually, the most effective cameras will not catch anyone!

Stark

PoleStar wrote:

The example I gave already was smoking. People are well aware that smoking kills and yet many do it. 1 in 4 in fact! And the fact that smoking kills has been common public knowledge for years.

There are still quite a few people around who became addicted to smoking before people knew it was bad for you. And then there are the people who started smoking when they were teenagers and found it too difficult to give it up since.

Stark

Stark wrote:

Does anyone know if the cameras in the UK are actually effective? I was up in the North last weekend and I noticed that our car seemed to be one of very few cars doing the speed limit despite there being cameras all the over the place and quite a few of those "average speed" cameras. There were cars with NI plates constantly whizzing past us.

From my own experience all they do is catch the unwary...inobservant drivers, AKA "crash magnets" by the insurance companies.

What I mean is that if you don't see the warning sign & fcuking great big dayglo orange camera on the side of the road no wonder they end up crashing into the car in front of them!! "I didn't see it!!!"

Speeders in the UK are so used to the cameras (the AA maps have their positions marked) they just drop anchor before then and return to their previous speed a few hundred metres further along. The SPECS average speed ones are the only really effective speed limiters (except when you need to stop/enter/exit the control zone) in Northampton the police knew this & ALWAYS (when off duty) raced in & out of their station that was in the middle of one of these zones, hypocrites!

kyote00

'That' camera is less than a mile from the trim turnoff and will have a positive slow down effect on traffic around it....

if you or some one you know is mowed down by some twat who is speeding on the N3 - you might change your mind...

And finally, what would suggest to solve the endemic speeding I believe (and see) some days in Ireland

VeVeX wrote:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7346/1153/a

http://www.peterharris.org.uk/roadsafety/camera.pdf

Page 86 (f)

The primary purpose of cameras is to achieve speed reduction of vehicles on stretches
of road with a known speed-related accident problem. One frequent result is manipulating
behaviour, encouraged by camera warning signs along the road in question. Manipulation of
cameras can lead to a 'concertina' effect, but research so far has found no adverse
consequences of this for accident figures (LAAU 1997). The secondary purpose of cameras is
to achieve speed reductions generally among drivers, which may prove more difficult although
our results on generalised effects are hopeful. Undermining drivers' confidence in knowing the
whereabouts of fixed-site cameras not only might reduce the incidence of 'braking and
accelerating', but also might bring about lower speeds generally, as indicated by some
manipulators and defiers who said they behaved as 'deterred' on other (perhaps less familiar)
camera-signed roads. A policy of reducing the visibility of roadside camera installations
is recommended, and linking with (b) above, a policy of combined speed limit and
camera warning signs in the target area is recommended. Some police forces and local
authorities have already instituted a policy of widespread coverage by repeater signs in the
target area. Signs are considerably cheaper than camera installations, and provided nearby
there is some degree of objective risk, our study like others suggests that subjective risk will
follow.



Read the first post again. This thread is about a camera on a turn for mulhuddart on the N3 not beside the trim road or
a debate on the entire stretch between blachardstown and navan.

Sandwich

kbannon wrote:

Actually, the most effective cameras will not catch anyone!

Is too limited a view. Of course if it catches no one, then its good that no one was speeding - on that stretch. But its influence is then limited to having an effect for 50 m of road - pretty poor effecitveness IMO.

But if you catch a lot of people (using the incorrectly derided 'fish-in-a-barrel'/catch-as-many-speeders-as-possible policy{NOTHING to do with maximising fine revenue as some incorrectly read it}), then people's perception of the chance of being caught reduces their tendency to risk by speeding generally.

Seth Brundle

Sandwich wrote:

But if you catch a lot of people (using the incorrectly derided 'fish-in-a-barrel'/catch-as-many-speeders-as-possible policy{NOTHING to do with maximising fine revenue as some incorrectly read it}), then people's perception of the chance of being caught reduces their tendency to risk by speeding generally.

Speed cameras have been around for several years (a few years before penalty points). I know of no evidence to show that they have had any impact - either succesful or negative

Sandwich

kbannon wrote:

Speed cameras have been around for several years (a few years before penalty points). I know of no evidence to show that they have had any impact - either succesful or negative

You are correct and incorrect.

They have been around for several years, but in such a limited way that they may as well have not been there at all. As far as I remember there were only two functioning cameras in Ireland (until recently anyway) - moved around betwen the various boxes. With downtime for moving them, maintaining them, and actual operating time due to the film limits in them - the average Irish driver would pass (let alone speed past one) a functioning camera less than once every five years. So in practice the risk of being caught by one is seen (correctly) as insignificant - so they have no practical influence on driving habits.

But if the chances of being caught were significantly increased, with many being caught, the penalty points mounting, and the chances of loosing your licence was perceived as a real possibility (or even likelyhood if the speeding habit is mainainted), people would not be so cavalier.

Seth Brundle

The cameras flashed even if there was no film inside.
They had no positive impact on safety IMO and may in fact have even (said with no supporting evidence) been a factor in many rear ending incidents.
Their introduction did not bring down the fatality numbers (and presumably incident numbers). It wasn't until penalty points were introduced that a dip in fatalities was seen.