Outragous hidden speed camera on the N3

Stark

MrPudding wrote:

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

Well you don't expect them to make people in Donegal slow down by putting speed cameras in Donegal do you? Because that would be just stoopid.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

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?

No, an advanced course teaches you how to make "safe progress". As in slow down when there are hazards, do the limit when it's clear ahead. Funnily enough, making safe progress is what you need to do to pass the Government test to show that you're a competent driver, not just an advanced test. I think we all agree that you shouldn't be driving about if you're incapable of passing the DoE test.

OldmanMondeo

MrPudding wrote:

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

I didn't make the road safety plan, just trying to figure parts of it out.

OldmanMondeo

Stark wrote:

No, an advanced course teaches you how to make "safe progress". As in slow down when there are hazards, when it's clear ahead. Funnily enough, making safe progress is what you need to do to pass the Government test to show that you're a competent driver, not just an advanced test. I think we all agree that you shouldn't be driving about if you're incapable of passing the DoE test.

Just re-read your post, Why would you want to drive at the limit? Unless your drive an emergency vechile you shouldn't need to.

Stark

From what I can see, the point MrPudding was making is that in a 100kph zone where it's safe to do that speed, it's not right to make other cars queue behind you because you fancy a nice leisurely 60-80kph drive that day. PoleStar is suggesting on the other hand that if you have a lazy Sunday afternoon to go for a drive, then you have the right to hold everyone else up because you're not in a rush. That kind of behaviour is just ignorant. I mean heaven forbid all the other drivers on the road might actually be on the road because they're heading somewhere.

OldmanMondeo

Stark wrote:

From what I can see, the point MrPudding was making is that in a 100kph zone where it's safe to do that speed, it's not right to make other cars queue behind you because you fancy a nice leisurely 60-80kph drive that day.

Maybe it is just my reading of the post, but to me it saying that Advance Driving Courses will not let you on unless you are prepared to drive at the MAX limit, ALL the time.

Stark

I think it's just your reading of the post.

MrPudding

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Maybe it is just my reading of the post, but to me it saying that Advance Driving Courses will not let you on unless you are prepared to drive at the MAX limit, ALL the time.

If you are on your advanced test and do a couple of k below each limit you will fail.

As an advanced driver you are expected to do the limit of the area you are in when it is safe to do so.

This is also a requirement in the normal test, but more so for advanced.

My IAM group had a talk with 6 of the examiners. Five serving traffic cops and one retired. They made it very clear that driving under the limit would result in a fail, unless there was good reason to do so.

MrP

Stark

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Just re-read your post, Why would you want to drive at the limit? Unless your drive an emergency vechile you shouldn't need to.

Because if it's safe to do so, I might actually like to get to my destination in reasonable time and so might the people behind me? Ffs, talk about silly questions.

And thanks for editing your post to something completely different btw. Now my reply looks totally out of place.

GreeBo

prospect wrote:

WRONG.

In that case I invite you to take part in a little experiment of mine.
You can crash into me at 1kp/h and I will crash into you at 100kp/h and then we can compare our results afterwards.

prospect wrote:

you may have slightly reduced reaction time,

May??? There is no may involved. If you are travelling "faster" then you have less time to react, its pretty simple stuff.

prospect wrote:

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

I said "speed" kills, not speeding.
Do you dispute these following points?

- The faster you go the more likely you are to kill someone in the event of a crash.
- The faster you go the less time you have to react in an emergency situation.
- The faster you go the more time & space you need to bring your vehicle to a halt.

OldmanMondeo

Stark wrote:

Because if it's safe to do so, I might actually like to get to my destination in reasonable time and so might the people behind me? Ffs, talk about silly questions.

I don't think it is a silly question. The point I was trying to make is that the Port Mr. Pudding made seem to say Drive at the limit all the time. He has now clarified what he meant.

Stark wrote:

And thanks for editing your post to something completely different btw. Now my reply looks totally out of place.

Sorry about that.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

MrPudding wrote:

If you are on your advanced test and do a couple of k below each limit you will fail.

As an advanced driver you are expected to do the limit of the area you are in when it is safe to do so.

This is also a requirement in the normal test, but more so for advanced.



MrP

Nonsense! I did the advanced motoring a few years ago and my daughter did it last year. In both cases (differentt instructors) we were given the adage that it is a Speed Limit and not a Target, and advised to keep a couple of KMH below the legal limit.

GreeBo

The difference in stopping distance on a normal, dry road with normal to good tires between travelling at 120kp/h and 125kp/h is a whopping 23 feet.
Do you travel 23 feet further from the car in front if you are speeding?

Link

prospect

GreeBo wrote:

- The faster you go the more likely you are to kill someone in the event of a crash.
- The faster you go the less time you have to react in an emergency situation.
- The faster you go the more time & space you need to bring your vehicle to a halt.

I agree with all those points,

But if we are to adhere to all those in the strictest terms we should set the limit to 1Km/h on all roads.

Which do you think is more dangerous?
1. A fully alert, well trained driver doing 100Km/h on an empty stretch of dry motorway in a well maintained and fully serviced car.
2. A recently licenced driver, with little road experience doing 80Km/h on a rural road, with potholes, on a foggy night after a freeze with cheap balding tyres?

Case one is travelling at a higher speed, but that doesn't make it more dangerous. Why? because it is an APPROPRIATE SPEED. Also, note, in case two, there is actually nothing illegal in that scenario, but according too your 'speed kills' theory it is the safer scenario. :rolleyes:

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

The difference in stopping distance on a normal, dry road with normal to good tires between travelling at 120kp/h and 125kp/h is a whopping 23 feet.
Do you travel 23 feet further from the car in front if you are speeding?

Link

I think most people just use the 2 second rule rather than calculating stopping distances in metres/feet. I just go with what I know from experience is a comfortable stopping distance at a particular speed/condition of road and then add a generous margin of error. Usually when I'm on a motorway I never need to brake at all.

GreeBo wrote:

May??? There is no may involved. If you are travelling "faster" then you have less time to react, its pretty simple stuff.

With proper training, people would rarely put themselves in a situation where they needed to rely on reaction times. Of course it's too much work to train people so let's just put out the "speed kills" mantra and wash our hands of the situation.

MrPudding

Gwendolyn Helpful Mango wrote:

Nonsense! I did the advanced motoring a few years ago and my daughter did it last year. In both cases (differentt instructors) we were given the adage that it is a Speed Limit and not a Target, and advised to keep a couple of KMH below the legal limit.

Interesting. Which advanced test was it?

MrP

GreeBo

prospect wrote:

I agree with all those points,

But if we are to adhere to all those in the strictest terms we should set the limit to 1Km/h on all roads.

No. We agree to stick to the posted limits.
Well, some of us do anyway.

prospect wrote:

Case one is travelling at a higher speed, but that doesn't make it more dangerous. Why? because it is an APPROPRIATE SPEED. Also, note, in case two, there is actually nothing illegal in that scenario, but according too your 'speed kills' theory it is the safer scenario.

What you decide to call appropriate some call too fast and others call too slow. Thats why there are signs on the road to tell you the maximum we all agree to drive at on this road.


I am not diagreeing that the limits on some rural roads are crazy, in fact of you look back you can see that I brought it up on this thread, but you cant use that as an excuse to go faster than the limit on other roads.
You are essentially taking the law into your own hands.

astraboy

prospect wrote:

I agree with all those points,

But if we are to adhere to all those in the strictest terms we should set the limit to 1Km/h on all roads.

Which do you think is more dangerous?
1. A fully alert, well trained driver doing 100Km/h on an empty stretch of dry motorway in a well maintained and fully serviced car.
2. A recently licenced driver, with little road experience doing 80Km/h on a rural road, with potholes, on a foggy night after a freeze with cheap balding tyres?

Case one is travelling at a higher speed, but that doesn't make it more dangerous. Why? because it is an APPROPRIATE SPEED. Also, note, in case two, there is actually nothing illegal in that scenario, but according too your 'speed kills' theory it is the safer scenario. :rolleyes:

Very well said. I had the idea of appropriate speed drilled into me by my dad when I was learning to drive. That is why I am against speed cameras, they only catch someone breaking a standard, one size fits all speed limit when it may be safe to do 20KMH over the limit if road conditions and weather are right. On the other hand, a speed camera will not catch someone undertaking, tailgating or dangerous driving at 90KPH on a 100KPH road limit. Its more guards on the roads we need, cameras are a poor replacement for proper policing.

People seem to think that speed limits are the be all and end all of road safety. All the people involved in the pile up last week were probably doing under the limit, yet their speed was totally inappropiate for the conditions. We need to traing drivers to think more for themselves, speed limits just make people believe this is a safe speed to drive at, when it could be more or less depending on conditions.

I'll try and dig it up later, but a study in britian on accidents over a few years found that people driving over the limit was only an issue in 2% of accidents, however a massive percentage, about 40% were due to people driving under the limit, yet the speed was inappropiate for the conditions. People should have the cop on to select a safe speed.

By the way, the comments above about allowing people to make progress is very good too. I hate drivers that think its their job to hold everyone up at 80KPH, then they speed up when I go to over take! Ignorance bordering on madness IMO.

GreeBo

astraboy wrote:

Very well said. I had the idea of appropriate speed drilled into me by my dad when I was learning to drive. That is why I am against speed cameras, they only catch someone breaking a standard, one size fits all speed limit when it may be safe to do 20KMH over the limit if road conditions and weather are right.

So you are not against Speed Cameras, you are really against speed limits and someone else telling you how fast you can drive.

Personally I am thinking about being against driving on the left, its just not a side that "fits" me.:cool:

Hagar

astraboy wrote:

Very well said. I had the idea of appropriate speed drilled into me by my dad when I was learning to drive.

So had I. The only flaw is that different people will deem different speeds to be appropriate in exactly the same circumstances. They can't all be right. Each will be making a subjective evaluation. Whether we agree with them or not speed limits are objective standards set by transport professionals.

Stark

GreeBo wrote:

Personally I am thinking about being against driving on the left, its just not a side that "fits" me.:cool:

Honestly, if there's nothing coming from the other direction and it's a clear straight road where it's obvious there's nothing coming from the other direction, then that wouldn't bother me

Marcus.Aurelius

Perhaps we should phase in continental driving!

astraboy

GreeBo wrote:

So you are not against Speed Cameras, you are really against speed limits and someone else telling you how fast you can drive.

Personally I am thinking about being against driving on the left, its just not a side that "fits" me.:cool:

Don't put words in my mouth ok? I love the way bordies get all high and mighty and turn around peoples points.

I am against speed cameras in most cases. Why not have them outside primary schools, fully visiable, so people get the message to slow down past that area? Instead we are going to see them on large, straight and reletavely safe stretches of road. And speed limits for certain roads are far too low. How come people are not massacred on the stretches of the Autoban without speedlimits every day?

I am mainly against speed cameras as they are being used as a political solution to lack of real policing, so the Gov can make fancy announcments before the election about doing something on road safety.

As for your driving on the left comment, don't take my posts out of context.

MrPudding

astraboy wrote:

That is why I am against speed cameras, they only catch someone breaking a standard, one size fits all speed limit when it may be safe to do 20KMH over the limit if road conditions and weather are right.

But there has to be a limit.

astraboy wrote:

On the other hand, a speed camera will not catch someone undertaking, tailgating or dangerous driving at 90KPH on a 100KPH road limit.

Nor will it catch someone travelling at the speed limit in fog with visability of 5 metres.

astraboy wrote:

Its more guards on the roads we need, cameras are a poor replacement for proper policing.

I believe there is a place for speed cameras, it is either side of an area where there are increased incidents, deaths and injuries. They should be brightly coloured and sign posted well in advance. They should also not catch a single speeder.

astraboy wrote:

By the way, the comments above about allowing people to make progress is very good too. I hate drivers that think its their job to hold everyone up at 80KPH, then they speed up when I go to over take! Ignorance bordering on madness IMO.

This is a hard one, you can't really force people to drive faster than they feel they are able to or indeed want to. TBH, I don't know how to deal with this aside from providing more overtaking areas on the roads.

GreeBo wrote:

Personally I use the 2 second rule, this is useful as the faster you go the further back you have to stay in order to be 2 seconds or more behind the car in front.

Any decent driver will be further from the car in front the faster they are travelling.

MrP

Marcus.Aurelius

astraboy wrote:

Don't put words in my mouth ok? I love the way bordies get all high and mighty and turn around peoples points.

I am against speed cameras in most cases. Why not have them outside primary schools, fully visiable, so people get the message to slow down past that area? Instead we are going to see them on large, straight and reletavely safe stretches of road. And speed limits for certain roads are far too low. How come people are not massacred on the stretches of the Autoban without speedlimits every day?

I am mainly against speed cameras as they are being used as a political solution to lack of real policing, so the Gov can make fancy announcments before the election about doing something on road safety.

As for your driving on the left comment, don't take my posts out of context.

Excellent comment. Fianna Fails recent idea to advertise the location of the new cameras for a year is only another pre-election gimmick. Their installation has also been perfectly timed to coincide with the election in May. More road safety blather, without a proper strategy we oonly alienate the bad drivers and miss the whole bloody point. Speed camera locations should make sense; we should all be able to say that "Yes, that is a good place for one" or "it's in a high risk zone". Why are they in safe places with fish in a barrel shots?

Mr P I concede your arguments. They're well thought out and well presented. We can't seem to teach people how to drive with some measure of concern for other road users. M50 Fast lane abuse is obscene, never mind the N11 and the rest. We must introduce legislation like in Australia, where you can be fined for using the overtaking lane whilst not overtaking. Another nice idea would be to ban HGVs from the overtaking lane except where their progress is inhibited to under 60 kph on 120 kph stretches.

astraboy

GreeBo wrote:

Nor will it catch someone travelling at the speed limit in fog with visability of 5 metres.

I believe there is a place for speed cameras, it is either side of an area where there are increased incidents, deaths and injuries. They should be brightly coloured and sign posted well in advance. They should also not catch a single speeder.



This is a hard one, you can't really force people to drive faster than they feel they are able to or indeed want to. TBH, I don't know how to deal with this aside from providing more overtaking areas on the roads.

Personally I use the 2 second rule, this is useful as the faster you go the further back you have to stay in order to be 2 seconds or more behind the car in front.

Any decent driver will be further from the car in front the faster they are travelling.

MrP

I adhere to the 2 second rule too, I learnt it during my ignition course and has served me well. I agree about the cameras being brightly coloured etc, and if they are effective they will not catchj anyone as people will be slowing down!

As for the fog situation, we could have large electronic boards on motorway overpasses allowing the speed limit to be temporarly lowered in times of accidents or poor weather. Then the lower limit could be enforced? Just an idea.

Marcus.Aurelius

That's the way they do it in Australia, where they have zero fog. And we live in a damp climate and we can't seem to take our fingers out.

Stark

maoleary wrote:

Excellent comment. Fianna Fails recent idea to advertise the location of the new cameras for a year is only another pre-election gimmick. Their installation has also been perfectly timed to coincide with the election in May. More road safety blather, without a proper strategy we oonly alienate the bad drivers and miss the whole bloody point. Speed camera locations should make sense; we should all be able to say that "Yes, that is a good place for one" or "it's in a high risk zone". Why are they in safe places with fish in a barrel shots?

That's a good idea. Let the people decide where they want the cameras.

Another nice idea would be to ban HGVs from the overtaking lane except where their progress is inhibited to under 60 kph on 120 kph stretches.

HGVs are banned from the overtaking lane.

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote:

Any decent driver will be further from the car in front the faster they are travelling.

You will need a new thread if we want to define "decent".

Marcus.Aurelius

You're serious? Most of them don't seem to know it!!! :-(

GreeBo

maoleary wrote:

M50 Fast lane

Is that to the left or the right of the overtaking lane? :rolleyes: