Outragous hidden speed camera on the N3

Altreab

kbannon wrote:

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.

And the best reduction of all was through the random breath testing. It has been by far the best way of reducing road deaths todate. That and the fact that Gardaí are actually on the road more since it was introduced.
I have to say that i have seen more of the traffic corp on the streets of Galway in the last month than i have in the previous year (ironically enough considering the events of the last few days)

Sandwich

kbannon wrote:

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).

I agree with you fully on this, but for me the reason is that the cameras, in practice, were 'almost' non-existent. So no contribution to safety.

kbannon wrote:

It wasn't until penalty points were introduced that a dip in fatalities was seen.

Agree also. But it was the percieved risk of lossing their licence that slowed people down (with subsequent rise again as people realised the chances of getting points were not as high as they had been led to believe by the prepoints publicity/media attention/hearsay). A high number of fines/penalty points being issued by speed cameras would have the same (or hopefully greater and longer lasting) effect as the penalty points introduction provoked. A strategy to catch the highest number of speeders possible (whether on dual carriageways, motorways, "safe" stretches, etc) would have a very 'persuasive' effect on attitudes to whether its worth risking speeding or not.

VeVeX

kyote00 wrote:

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

There has been speed camera on the approach to the trim turn off from navan for the last couple of years already. What influance is a camera after that turn going to have on that particular junction ? None. People know its there so take evasive actions not to be caught.

After that junction the Dunboyne turn off is next then Kilbride then Clonee then the Mulhuddart one into the Ind estate. I have driven this road alot (Dunboyne,Clonee,Mulhuddart,Blancharcdstown) in recent times and found bar traffic it to be a safe enough passage.

Seth Brundle

Can someone remind me why the Trim Rd junction was brought up here given that the thread is about a camera (allegedly!) off the dual carriageway?

GreeBo

Saruman wrote:

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..

Yeah, either that or they will do something mad like obey the posted limit!:cool:

GreeBo

prospect wrote:

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).

By this statement you are assuming that these killer drivers dont drive on the M50?

Putting 1 camera on a stratch of rural road is going to catch far less speeders than a camera on the M50.
If people learn to drive to the limits then surely that makes all roads safer?

Then again, with that in mind the posted limits on rural roads are a joke. 80km/h up to Powerscourt?:eek:

GreeBo

astraboy wrote:

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.

If its "safe" to be over the limit then surely, by your own logic, the man in the office would have posted a higher limit for the road in general, leaving it up to the driver to decide when he should adjust his speed down?:rolleyes:

astraboy wrote:

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.

Being over the speed limit may not cause more accidents but it sure as hell causes more deaths.

Mitch Connor

GreeBo wrote:

By this statement you are assuming that these killer drivers dont drive on the M50?

Putting 1 camera on a stratch of rural road is going to catch far less speeders than a camera on the M50.
If people learn to drive to the limits then surely that makes all roads safer?

Then again, with that in mind the posted limits on rural roads are a joke. 80km/h up to Powerscourt?:eek:

but the people are likely to only slow down in the areas they know they are more likely to be caught, so may well continue to drive at a dangerous speed (doesn't have to be speeding imo) on the rural roads where deaths are more likely.

Mitch Connor

GreeBo wrote:

If its "safe" to be over the limit then surely, by your own logic, the man in the office would have posted a higher limit for the road in general, leaving it up to the driver to decide when he should adjust his speed down?:rolleyes:

There are plenty of roads that have inappropriate speed limits, both too high and too low.

60kph on the n11 between the old delgany turn off and the merging lane over 2 miles up the road is far too low. 80kph on the roads up to powerscourt is far too high.

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

Yeah, either that or they will do something mad like obey the posted limit!:cool:

Adjusting your speed by varying the pressure you put on the accelerator may seem like something even your five year old should be able to figure out but it seems beyond the ability of many Irish drivers. I've driven behind people loads of times where the pattern was "55mph. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. BRAKE. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. BRAKE" and so on for miles. And that's in the current climate where the chances of being caught are negligible.

prospect

GreeBo wrote:

Putting 1 camera on a stratch of rural road is going to catch far less speeders than a camera on the M50.

Thank you, this statement sums up my whole argument.

You are indeed correct, the camera on the M50 will catch far more speeders,


But,
Will it catch more killers?

OldmanMondeo

prospect wrote:

But,
Will it catch more killers?

No, I think the idea is, apart from the revenue excerise that people mentioned, is to get people to start watching their speed, and that it will mean people will keep within the limits set on all roads. Sort of driver education if you wish. If it works or not, couldn't tell you.

Maybe with all the camera springing up around the place, drivers will be more cautious and maybe a few lives will be saves.

prospect

OldmanMondeo wrote:

No, I think the idea is, apart from the revenue excerise that people mentioned, is to get people to start watching their speed, and that it will mean people will keep within the limits set on all roads. Sort of driver education if you wish. If it works or not, couldn't tell you.

Maybe with all the camera springing up around the place, drivers will be more cautious and maybe a few lives will be saves.

But, as I stated earlier on, people learn these fixed locations, and slow down in these places.

But, they also know there is very very little chance of getting caught on rural roads, and this is where they take risks. And this is where people die. The facts speak for themselves.


I am not arguing that there should be no speed cameras on the M50 and equivalent roads. What I am saying is, that if there were two or three mobile (covert) speed cameras per county that moved around too random spots on rural roads 2 or 3 times a day, it would make more of an impact on road deaths than 150 extra cameras around dublin city would.

The city has enough cameras now, so lets start investing in country cameras.

GreeBo

Tauren wrote:

but the people are likely to only slow down in the areas they know they are more likely to be caught, so may well continue to drive at a dangerous speed (doesn't have to be speeding imo) on the rural roads where deaths are more likely.

Which is why the cameras should be hidden and not announced to the world.

Mitch Connor

GreeBo wrote:

Which is why the cameras should be hidden and not announced to the world.

and, more importantly imo, they should be in the places that are more likely to see a fatal crash.

Mitch Connor

i think another issues needs to be looked at - inappropriate limits on rural roads. If anyone thinks actually doing 80kph on roads like the one to powerscourt (and by no means is it the only one around) is safe i'd love to see it. A driver, imo, can be a lot more dangerous driving those roads at 80, or even 70 then someone doing 5/10kph over the limit on the motorway.

I'd say a lot more people are killed on the poorly lit (if lit at all) country roads then on the m50 or similar roads.

prospect

OldmanMondeo wrote:

that it will mean people will keep within the limits set on all roads.

that does NOT work, and nothing will ever change that.

You look at the fixed speed camera on the M50 heading south from the Airport, people drive above the limit, then apply their brakes and drive over the reference strips on the road (for the camera) and then accellerate off again after they are clear of the camera. Happens all day, every day.

GreeBo

prospect wrote:

Thank you, this statement sums up my whole argument.

You are indeed correct, the camera on the M50 will catch far more speeders,


But,
Will it catch more killers?

Speed kills.
You can start with the whole "inappropriate speed" argument but the bottom line is that the faster you are going the less time you have to react to a situation and the more likely you are to kill somone in the event of a crash.

prospect

GreeBo wrote:

Speed kills.

WRONG.

GreeBo wrote:

You can start with the whole "inappropriate speed" argument but the bottom line is that the faster you are going the less time you have to react to a situation and the more likely you are to kill somone in the event of a crash.

I think I will, thanks for the invite.
On a large, well lit road with multiple lanes including a Hard shoulder and few bends, no right turns etc, you may have slightly reduced reaction time, but you also can see incidents sooner and have options on what to do with your vehicle. So, if there is a truck broken down a half mile ahead and you are travelling at 130Km/h you will see that truck, move into the clear lane and pass.

On a narrow, windy country road, with bends, blind spots, no lighting, no road markings, a ditch on the left and oncoming traffic on the right, you are travelling at the limit of 80Km/h. The same truck is broken down a half mile ahead, you won't see it with the bends etc, and when you do round the final bend, it is on top of you. Your options, turn left into the ditch, go straight into the truck or go right and head on ito the oncoming traffic.

Both of the above are very real situations, and in case one, you are 'speeding' in case two, you are not.

OldmanMondeo

prospect wrote:

that does NOT work, and nothing will ever change that.

You look at the fixed speed camera on the M50 heading south from the Airport, people drive above the limit, then apply their brakes and drive over the reference strips on the road (for the camera) and then accellerate off again after they are clear of the camera. Happens all day, every day.

That happens at most, if not all, cameras I would guess.

Our man in Havana

The one after the M50 toll southbound is a prime example of this.

craichoe

Everyone here knows that their Speedo is roughly 10 percent off right ?

So if your doing 100kph on the speedo your actually doing 90 and if your doing 120 your 118 kph ...

You can verify this with GPS.

So if you say you were doing 105kph, you werent sped at all ... and on the motorway if your doing 125kph you weren't speeding either.

You'd have to be hitting 131 or thereabouts to be breaking the speed limit

craichoe

craichoe wrote:

Everyone here knows that their Speedo is roughly 10 percent off right ?

So if your doing 100kph on the speedo your actually doing 90 and if your doing 120 your 118 kph ...

You can verify this with GPS.

So if you say you were doing 105kph, you werent sped at all ... and on the motorway if your doing 125kph you weren't speeding either.

You'd have to be hitting 131 or thereabouts to be breaking the speed limit

I don't believe that!!

I know that the accuracy is dependent on tyre pressure etc, historically speedos were within 10% of the actual speed & law enforcement agencies take this into account.

Modern cars are probably much more accurate than this!

OldmanMondeo

craichoe wrote:

Everyone here knows that their Speedo is roughly 10 percent off right ?

So if your doing 100kph on the speedo your actually doing 90 and if your doing 120 your 118 kph ...

You can verify this with GPS.

So if you say you were doing 105kph, you werent sped at all ... and on the motorway if your doing 125kph you weren't speeding either.

You'd have to be hitting 131 or thereabouts to be breaking the speed limit

Fair enough, but I think I will stick to what the speedo says, just in case it isn't off. Hopefully this is the case and I won't get a ticket from the M50 Gatso van.

Alun

Deleted User wrote:

I don't believe that!!

I know that the accuracy is dependent on tyre pressure etc, historically speedos were within 10% of the actual speed & law enforcement agencies take this into account.

Modern cars are probably much more accurate than this!

We've had this discussion here at least a zillion times before.

While modern speedos certainly have the potential to be more accurate, EU regulations that specify that speedos must never, under any circumstances, under-read, means that they add in a percentage over-read to make sure that never happens. That percentage would appear to lie somewhere between about 5 and 10%.

OTK

The new speed camera regime is coming in this autumn. There are 3 fixed working speed cameras in the state now and these are to be replaced with 600. Many of these will be hidden or mobile.

A lot of this thread is an argument against universal suffrage.

--edit--

Stark wrote:

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.

The law does not allow you to speed while overtaking. The rules of the road explicitly forbid it (on Page 45). You don't have special rights as a motorist no more than you have special rights as the owner of any other device- you merely have additional responsibilities. So you can't really overtake someone safely unless that person is travelling considerably below the speed limit.

MrPudding

PoleStar wrote:

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

Try getting an advanced driving or riding qualification with that attitude.

MrP

Stark

OTK wrote:

The law does not allow you to speed while overtaking. The rules of the road explicitly forbid it (on Page 45). You don't have special rights as a motorist no more than you have special rights as the owner of any other device- you merely have additional responsibilities. So you can't really overtake someone safely unless that person is travelling considerably below the speed limit.

I know it doesn't. But I do think it's safer to go a little over the speed limit and overtake more quickly, than it is to stick religiously to the speed limit. Just because someone is doing considerably less than the speed limit doesn't mean they're going to keep to that speed when you try to overtake them. I've often started to overtake cars who were doing 30mph for miles in a 60mph zone only for them to rapidly speed up as soon as I did. The less time you spend overtaking them, the less opportunity you give them to apply the accelerator.

MrPudding

OldmanMondeo wrote:

No, I think the idea is, apart from the revenue excerise that people mentioned, is to get people to start watching their speed, and that it will mean people will keep within the limits set on all roads. Sort of driver education if you wish. If it works or not, couldn't tell you.

Oh, I get it now. By catching loads of speeders on the M50, through some "butterfly effect" we get speeders in Donegal to slow down. Right. I just wasn't getting it at all and was beginning to think I was thick.

Cheers for sorting that out.

So, let me summarise, our road safety policy is now based on an OK movie with yer man from Punk'd?

MrP

OldmanMondeo

MrPudding wrote:

Try getting an advanced driving or riding qualification with that attitude.

MrP

WHAT? Your saying that an advance driving course teaches you how to drive on the limit, all of the time? Or is that the Mondello Advance Driving Course?