Outragous hidden speed camera on the N3

Marcus.Aurelius

Sorry, spent some time abroad this year, the lingo is slowly returning! Then again, i guess there really is no such thing as fast on the M50 these days! :rolleyes:

GreeBo

astraboy wrote:

Don't put words in my mouth ok?

Its the logical result of your post.
"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"
Who gives a flying freak if *YOU* think its safe to drive 20kp/h over the limit.
Piss off onto your own road network if you are not going to drive by the rules.

astraboy wrote:

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

How is it out of context? You specifically said you are against one size fits all limits, could I be more in context?

Doodee

unfortunately both sides of the arguement are correct. No your should not speed, however, speed cameras in high volume traffic areas on relevantly safe roads will do nothing to prevent the growing number of road carnage being seen.

Anyone who has spent decent time in a rural area will know of the chances that the people of those rural areas take in their cars. Speeding is prominent and often the cause of deaths, I agree with those who suggest that speed cameras and speed control devices should be used for those purposes. Please remmber people that without attacking the problem directly more familys are going to suffer a loss.

I must say this though, the Garda in this country need to be disciplined and re-trained. Not all of them are doing their job correctly and the excuse that there aren't enough of them is rather stupid. As we can see from the Health Sector more doesn't mean better. If there were as many Garda as there are Health consultants then we'd probably still have the same traffic problems only more wages to pay.

An example of this happened only last night to my father. He finished up work in the usual nightly hours of 2am. Was reversing out of work when a Squad car decided not to take the turn they were indicating for and instead continue on and pull in, My father, doing the same thing he has done for 35 years, pulled out of the carpark (located on a busy "RURAL" road) and started driving home, only to be followed by the squad car. Now anyone who knows the route will know the distance involved, Threadneedle Rd (In galway) through salthill and then turning left down past the Sac re cur hotel, through Oaklands and onto Dr.Mannix Road. It was only on Dr. Mannix road, roughly 2km or more from where he began that the Garda pulled him over. They politely asked for his drivers license and home address, walked around the car inspecting it and then asked him if he was still living at said address. My father is like myself, when being ask stupid questions he was quite blunt, stating Yes of course to the license and address questions and adding a "as i have been for 35years now" to the last question on still being a resident of that address.

Now, im sure you will all say thats nothing to write home about but it is.
There are only 2 reasons why the Garda would have followed him, the first one is that he works in a Pub and so it would appear that he could possibly be DUI (which we bth know isn't the case since he doesn't drink and hasn't done so in 4 years) now the second case could be down to the high profile car that he drives, a sports car.
My question is why the cops didn't stop him shortly after setting off from his original location, but instead proceeded to follow him for some time.
If he was DUI then it would of been easily noticeable , if the car was nicked it would have been quite easy to find out too, but instead they wasted everyones time and did the most round about thing they could possibly do.

It really is time for a major change in this country and i hope the rest of the irish youth think so too.

astraboy

GreeBo wrote:

Its the logical result of your post.
"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"
Who gives a flying freak if *YOU* think its safe to drive 20kp/h over the limit.
Piss off onto your own road network if you are not going to drive by the rules.


How is it out of context? You specifically said you are against one size fits all limits, could I be more in context?

You just prove my point exactly. Who makes up the speed limits? County councils to my knowledge. Speed limits are not a total solution, its dangerous driving I woud be concerned with, do you REALLY believe that 100KPH on certain straight dual carriageways is safe, but 105/110 may not be? Likewise the limit on some backroads is far too high for the road condition. As I said already, speed is relative and speed limits are a poor fit in most places at best. Read my above posts to clarify my views. BTW, I am not some speed junkie, I nearly always drive under the limit. Again look at my point about the autoban above. Of course we can't all be angles like you. Off you go now on your high horse, I noticed there seems to be a lot of them on the boards since I joined............:rolleyes:

prospect

GreeBo wrote:

We agree to stick to the posted limits.

GreeBo wrote:

I am not diagreeing that the limits on some rural roads are crazy

Hmmm,

So your idea of not speeding, (i.e. driving safely) is driving up to the posted limit, yet you admit alot of those limits are crazy!!! ??? Major contradiction there.

You see, when I say that I drive at an appropriate speed, that does not mean I always drive above the limit. Alot of the time, particularly on country roads, I drive below the limit.

Also, this idea that alot of people have that the posted limit on the road is the safest speed to drive at is a load of crap t.b.h.
The N7 has a speed limit of 100Km/h. That is for all cars, regardless of their braking capability and how well they are maintained. It is also for all drivers at all levels of experience.

Can you honestly tell me that a new driver on a provisional licence driving an old car that is due a service and has 3 adult passangers is just as safe doing 100Km/h down the N7 as a driver with 15 years no claims experience and driving a newer recently serviced car with no passangers?

Appropriate speed does not equal driving above the speed limit. In my example above the appropriate speed of the first driver should be well below 100Km/h.


IMO, If your whole basis of safe driving is to trust the speed limits 100%, and not consider all the other factors, then you are a very irresponsible driver.

Kimbot

Well alot of the points in theses peeding threads are valid but there are a few problems with something people are saying:

If a dangerous country road has a limit of 80kmph but it is not safe to do the 80 them common sence will prevail and say "That is the max permitted speed allowed on this road" not a target you have to achieve all the time on the road!!!

People are going on about "oh its safe to do 140kmph on the motorway"... just because you think its safe doesn't mean it is!! You don't specialise in the area so cannot seriously believe you are justified in making that decision!!

Either way when people in this country buy a car and learn how to drive they are accepting that the posted speed limits are the maximum they can do and that if you go over them you will be done for speeding!! You make the choice to drive these roads but alot of you won't stick to the speed limits!! Thats the most careless driving you can do!!! Making up your own mind that its acceptable to speed!!

Saruman

Well another reason people speed on certain roads is the bypass effect (i just made that up... applying for patent now ).
Such as the new M4. The old N4 was then made a regional road and given an 80km speed limit. This road which was perfectly safe to do 100kmh on the week before is now changed, not because of safety but because the road changed hands from the NRA to the local authority.
Or if you like a conspiracy.. to force people to use the Toll road and give the government more money.
When people start seeing realistic speed limits here then people will be more inclined to obey them.
The N6 is the same quality of road as the new M4 but because its a national road people are expected to slow down to 100kmh on a road that is just as safe as the motorway. I think a special speed limit of 120 should be applied to roads like this.. just like the N2 ashbourne bypass. They got the road right there.

Another thing that will happen if we continue to see speed cameras on safe dual carriageways etc and nothing done where needed on rural roads and in towns etc is that rural roads will be a free for all. People will "escape" to the rural roads to tear around and let off some steam and possibly kill someone in the process. I have no problem with a speed camera on a motorway but only AFTER the dangerous roads are conentrated on not before.

Mitch Connor

jonny24ie wrote:

If a dangerous country road has a limit of 80kmph but it is not safe to do the 80 them common sence will prevail and say "That is the max permitted speed allowed on this road" not a target you have to achieve all the time on the road!!!

People are going on about "oh its safe to do 140kmph on the motorway"... just because you think its safe doesn't mean it is!! You don't specialise in the area so cannot seriously believe you are justified in making that decision!!

If you agree the specialists get it wrong with regards speed limits on the rural roads, why is it so hard to accept that they may have got them wrong on motorways and the like?

I'm not asking you to suddenly see the light and decide to speed al the way home (not saying the deciding to speed would be 'seeing the light' either, really). I understand your point with regards the posted limit and that people should not go above it, I do not speed myself - but i am certainly not of the opinion that anything over 120kph on the M50, or 100 on a perfect DC, is automatically dangerous driving, just because a specialist (who you admit you think has got it wrong with regards rural roads) has set the limit at 120/100.

Marcus.Aurelius

Specialists do not set the road speeds. County Councils are responsible for road speed limits. To change the speed limit requires dozens of meetings and red tape as highlighted recently in a Dublin City Coronor's Ruling being ignored by a county council. The Coroner ruled that the speed limit was unacceptably high and the council refused to change it as the process takes so long. This is why blanket limits are used. 80 kph for rural (R) roads and 100 kph for national primary (N) roads and 120 kph for motorways (M). This is not the case on the M50 southern parts, due to complaints and objections lodged.

All of us can attest to the fact that most R roads are not suitable for driving at 80 kph, more like 60kph or even 50 kph in some places. Many of us would also agree that the m50 speed limit is set quite right, 120 kph is a good steady speed and well within reach of both driver and car. However, quite good dual carraigeways like the N4 (westbound after the M50 roundabout) are ruined with the 80 kph limit.

This particular limit and indeed the lower M50 limits around the roadworks are not set to suit the driver or the car, but to prevent the most incapable and incompetent drivers from killing themselves. Any Advanced driver can drive at well over 160 kph in a safer manner than the majority of people can drive at 100 kph.

Not that I condone these speeds! But this is a big issue on the roads, some people can drive very well, some people have driven in the same old way for years and refuse to improve or hone their skills, this causes accidents, the "ME ME ME" generation, not all boy racers, not all blondes, not all so called "speeders". We are fighting the "ME ME ME" drivers who refuse to improve their skills or hone their driving ability. They are the ones that are killing people on our roads.

By the way, is it just me or are the KK reg drivers the worst for ME ME ME attitude?

Why don't county councils ask the Gardai to help them to set the limits? The guards see what people's driving is like every day, and would be a lot better than some half brained council engineer with no driving skills.

astraboy

prospect wrote:

Hmmm,

So your idea of not speeding, (i.e. driving safely) is driving up to the posted limit, yet you admit alot of those limits are crazy!!! ??? Major contradiction there.

You see, when I say that I drive at an appropriate speed, that does not mean I always drive above the limit. Alot of the time, particularly on country roads, I drive below the limit.

Also, this idea that alot of people have that the posted limit on the road is the safest speed to drive at is a load of crap t.b.h.
The N7 has a speed limit of 100Km/h. That is for all cars, regardless of their braking capability and how well they are maintained. It is also for all drivers at all levels of experience.

Can you honestly tell me that a new driver on a provisional licence driving an old car that is due a service and has 3 adult passangers is just as safe doing 100Km/h down the N7 as a driver with 15 years no claims experience and driving a newer recently serviced car with no passangers?

Appropriate speed does not equal driving above the speed limit. In my example above the appropriate speed of the first driver should be well below 100Km/h.


IMO, If your whole basis of safe driving is to trust the speed limits 100%, and not consider all the other factors, then you are a very irresponsible driver.

Well said, I think I'm agreeing with a lot of people on this thread!:)
I'd prefer someone to be watching the road and be aware of whats happening then constantly looking at their speedometer.

@Maoleary, My dad is a roads engineer in the council, he works closely with the NRA etc. He was telling me that the councils would try and move the 50KPH limit out past a town or village as much as possible to allow development, as a new site entrance(for one house or an estate) cannot really be placed on a road with the national speed limit. I'm afraid many roads have speed limits set by such standards instead of safety concerns or in fact what speed may be appropriate.

GreeBo

prospect wrote:

Hmmm,

So your idea of not speeding, (i.e. driving safely) is driving up to the posted limit, yet you admit alot of those limits are crazy!!! ??? Major contradiction there.

Firstly you are making the link that driving up the posted limit is driving safely.

I am the one proposing that people do not break the limit not that they drive at it all the time.

The idea is "Appropriate Speed", NOT "Appropriate Speeding".
Too many people use the argument to drive faster than the speed limit, you cant drive slower on a foggy day and then drive faster because its a sunny day.

The speed limit is a maximum, hence the name limit, as in something you do not pass.

prospect wrote:

IMO, If your whole basis of safe driving is to trust the speed limits 100%, and not consider all the other factors, then you are a very irresponsible driver.

No, part of may basis for safe driving is to not speed. Its pretty simple really, I cannot fathom where the complications are coming from.

tauren wrote:

If you agree the specialists get it wrong with regards speed limits on the rural roads, why is it so hard to accept that they may have got them wrong on motorways and the like?

Because other than being an impatient fecker, the speed limits being too low doesnt matter a fiddlers.

jonny24ie wrote:

<snip>

yes to pretty much everything you said but it appears common sense does not prevail.

astraboy wrote:

I'd prefer someone to be watching the road and be aware of whats happening then constantly looking at their speedometer.

if you need to constantly look at your speedo to check your speed then you need more time on the road, can I request that its no where near me please?

prospect

GreeBo wrote:

No, part of my basis for safe driving is to not speed. Its pretty simple really, I cannot fathom where the complications are coming from

Once your car begins to move it is travelling at speed. So, you had better just leave it parked all the time, just in case you kill someone.


Because, as stated earlier, the system for choosing speed limits is done by local authorities. In other words, a bunch of mostly lay people voting on their opinion of the limit.
there is no scientific fact or basis for it. And they do get it wrong.

So, my basis for safe driving is for me to judge my safe speed, depending on my experience and the road and weather conditions, and the limitations of my specific vehicle, not what a little sign with a number dreamed up by a bunch of bureaucrat's tells me.

So, once again, speed does not kill. Inappropriate speed kills.

astraboy

Prospect, I again agree! Greebo, can you not see why we are giving out about the speed limits, you stated above its a maximum, but you blindly refuse to see the point that on certain roads speed limits are too low, and on certain roads they are too high. Do you take all of what our lords and masters say so easily and without question. Your a great little citizen.

As for the original point about speed cameras, I'm all for them in 50KPH zones out side schools, however I reckon it going to be fish in a barrel again, giving the gov some nice juicy figures for the media.....:rolleyes:

astraboy

GreeBo wrote:

Because other than being an impatient fecker, the speed limits being too low doesnt matter a fiddlers.


yes to pretty much everything you said but it appears common sense does not prevail.

if you need to constantly look at your speedo to check your speed then you need more time on the road, can I request that its no where near me please?

Well lets lower the limit to 5mph so and see the road deaths fall.

As for checking your speedo, how else do you know your speed? My point is that 45KPH on a very narrow back road feels faster then it is, as 110KPH on a motorway feels slower. So unless you use common sense and select a safe speed based on your judgement, you have to keep looking at the speedo right? Like I said, just because 100KPH is judged to be a safe max on a road does not mean it cannot be higher or lower depending on conditions, you just refuse to see this point.

GreeBo

prospect wrote:

Once your car begins to move it is travelling at speed. So, you had better just leave it parked all the time, just in case you kill someone.

Check your dictionary smartarse.
"to drive a vehicle at a rate that exceeds the legally established maximum"

prospect wrote:

So, my basis for safe driving is for me to judge my safe speed, depending on my experience and the road and weather conditions, and the limitations of my specific vehicle, not what a little sign with a number dreamed up by a bunch of bureaucrat's tells me.

Thats all well and good but you are NOT allowed to go above the maximum limit. Its called the law.

prospect wrote:

So, once again, speed does not kill. Inappropriate speed kills.

You just dont get it. The faster you are going the more likely you are to kill someone in a crash. Its not up to you to decide what is appropriate speed.
We are talking about speeding, the thread is about speeding cameras.Where is the problem?

GreeBo

astraboy wrote:

Prospect, I again agree! Greebo, can you not see why we are giving out about the speed limits, you stated above its a maximum, but you blindly refuse to see the point that on certain roads speed limits are too low, and on certain roads they are too high.

Way to enforce your point dude, if you bother to read the whole thread you will see that I brought up the point of stupidly high speed limits.

astraboy wrote:

Do you take all of what our lords and masters say so easily and without question. Your a great little citizen.

Its a law, if you want to question the law then follow the proper channels, dont just decide to break it.

GreeBo

astraboy wrote:

Well lets lower the limit to 5mph so and see the road deaths fall.

Well it would work. You are against putting cameras on the M50 because you dont think that will lower deaths. 5mph everywhere will do this but you are against this too.

astraboy wrote:

As for checking your speedo, how else do you know your speed? My point is that 45KPH on a very narrow back road feels faster then it is, as 110KPH on a motorway feels slower. So unless you use common sense and select a safe speed based on your judgement, you have to keep looking at the speedo right?

I dont have to look at it constantly, I can control the speed of my car by feel.

astraboy wrote:

Like I said, just because 100KPH is judged to be a safe max on a road does not mean it cannot be higher

the safe max may be higher in your opinion but the laws in the country you are living in say that is the max you may drive at.
Are there many other laws that you dont agree with that you break?

Marcus.Aurelius

astraboy wrote:

Well said, I think I'm agreeing with a lot of people on this thread!:)
I'd prefer someone to be watching the road and be aware of whats happening then constantly looking at their speedometer.

@Maoleary, My dad is a roads engineer in the council, he works closely with the NRA etc. He was telling me that the councils would try and move the 50KPH limit out past a town or village as much as possible to allow development, as a new site entrance(for one house or an estate) cannot really be placed on a road with the national speed limit. I'm afraid many roads have speed limits set by such standards instead of safety concerns or in fact what speed may be appropriate.

Excellent comment, road engineers know the problem, but can't do anything about it because speed limits are rarely set because of intelligent scrutiny of that road. My hat goes off to anyone trying to introduce some intelligence into the process.

By the way, I agree that excess speed is a factor in accidents, but how much extra is excess? 120 kph on the N4 outbound from the M50 would not be dangerous for decent drivers, but all the idiots would kill themselves. :rolleyes:

GreeBo

astraboy wrote:

I reckon it going to be fish in a barrel again, giving the gov some nice juicy figures for the media.....:rolleyes:

yeah, imagine putting cameras on roads that people speed on!
Oh the hilarity.:rolleyes:

astraboy

By deduction you could conclude that if some limits are too high, then some must also be too low no? I think we may have to agree to disagree here man, like I said I don't go out on the road to smash the speed limits, but if I feel they are ridiculously low I will go over them, I'm not denying it. Just because someone tells me its safe to do 95KPH and not 105KPH then I'm not going to take take that as gospel, I think it is right to question why some limits are so low in places.

As for the speed cameras, read my post above about having them out side schools.

Finally, places like Germany(certain autoban routes) and the Isle of Man(has no speed limits outside of towns) do not have excessive road deaths. Can you explain why? Maybe its because the cops on the road have to look for dangerous driving instead of someone creeping over the limit. But it goes to prove speed limits are not the be all and end all of road safety, however they obviously have their place.

Marcus.Aurelius

GreeBo, please take the edge off your comments.

The issue is, plainly stated, that cameras are on roads where road deaths are minimal, although speeding occurs. This leads to huge govt income and nice figures for RSA reports in an election year.

My argument and that of others is that the speed cameras should be in locations where there is a large death rate due to speeding and to introduce intelligent new limits along with the new camera.

The government is there to listen to the will of the people, not the reverse as you seem to believe.

astraboy

GreeBo wrote:

yeah, imagine putting cameras on roads that people speed on!
Oh the hilarity.:rolleyes:

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree because you are clearly too stubborn to put my points together and try and see things from my point of view which, at this stage, I think I've explained.

Heres an example, my route home from college back home for the weekend takes about an hour. I pass 5 schools on this route. Now on the VERY rare occasion I see a guard out with a speed gun, it is on one of the two largest straightest stretches of road on my route. Never ever outside one of the schools or hospitals or on an approach into a busy town. This is what I mean by fish in a barrel, catching people slightly over the limit yet still driving safely, instead of catching people smashing the limit on the approach to areas where there are lots of pedestrians. Its a poor use of resources.

A good few of the other posters agree with me. You place an awful amount of thrust in the speed limits which I believe is misplaced, that is all. I believe it is possible to drive over the limit safely on certain roads, namely dual carriageways that maintain the national limit of 100KPH. I have agreed with some of your other points on previous pages though.

astraboy

GreeBo wrote:

Well it would work. You are against putting cameras on the M50 because you dont think that will lower deaths. 5mph everywhere will do this but you are against this too.

No. I dont think putting cameras on motorways, which are the safest roads in the country, will save lives. I've stated this already. Put them where they are needed, not where they will generate the most revenue.

GreeBo wrote:

I dont have to look at it constantly, I can control the speed of my car by feel.

Your just contradicting yourself there are you not? I do this do, if the speed I
happen to be driving at is slightly over the limit(on rare occasion) then so be it.

GreeBo wrote:

the safe max may be higher in your opinion but the laws in the country you are living in say that is the max you may drive at.
Are there many other laws that you dont agree with that you break?

Ya, I like to rob cash in transit vans on a regular basis, its a hobby of mine. I'm hoping to buy a high horse just like yours when I rob the next one.

prospect

GreeBo wrote:

Check your dictionary smartarse.
"to drive a vehicle at a rate that exceeds the legally established maximum"

Okay;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speed

No need for the insults, although it is a sign of someone fighting a loosing battle.

GreeBo wrote:

you are NOT allowed to go above the maximum limit. Its called the law.

I know it is the law. My point is simply that speed does not kill. Inappropriste speed soes, legal or not.
Also, I have already said a few times, that Appropriate Speed can just as often mean travelling below the posted limit.

GreeBo wrote:

You just dont get it. The faster you are going the more likely you are to kill someone in a crash.

True, and if this government are serious about reducing road deaths they will focus on the country roads where these deaths are happening, not between the Toll Bridge and the Lucan exit on the M50, where I don't think anyone has ever been killed.

GreeBo wrote:

Its not up to you to decide what is appropriate speed

Knowing my limits, my cars limits, and the enviornmental conditions around me at any given time, I think I am better qualified to make a decision on appropriate speed than some fat cat local politicians.

GreeBo wrote:

We are talking about speeding, the thread is about speeding cameras.Where is the problem?

Because, I am arguing that focussing on the M50 and the main road commuter belts into Dublin (M4, M7 etc.) is a waste of time, money, effort and lives.
Focus the effort on the roads where people are actually dying.

GreeBo

astraboy wrote:

By deduction you could conclude that if some limits are too high, then some must also be too low no?
<snip>
I think it is right to question why some limits are so low in places.

but I never denied that some are too low, however the fact is that the law is the law.
You can question all you like and I would encourage you to do so, but speeding is not questionning its law-breaking.

astraboy

maoleary wrote:

Excellent comment, road engineers know the problem, but can't do anything about it because speed limits are rarely set because of intelligent scrutiny of that road. My hat goes off to anyone trying to introduce some intelligence into the process.

By the way, I agree that excess speed is a factor in accidents, but how much extra is excess? 120 kph on the N4 outbound from the M50 would not be dangerous for decent drivers, but all the idiots would kill themselves. :rolleyes:

The report I read about was based on british accidents, what the meant by excessive speed as the cause of the accident was speed, under the legal limit, but not appropriate for the conditions, driver, weather or perhaps the car.

Like you said, appropiate speed is often well under the limit.

GreeBo

prospect wrote:

Okay;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speed

No need for the insults, although it is a sign of someone fighting a loosing battle.

I was responding to your smart comment about not moving your car.
Check point 17 or your defnintion, that where I got mine from.

prospect wrote:

Because, I am arguing that focussing on the M50 and the main road commuter belts into Dublin (M4, M7 etc.) is a waste of time, money, effort and lives.
Focus the effort on the roads where people are actually dying.

Would you agree that that that belongs in another thread?

astraboy

GreeBo wrote:

but I never denied that some are too low, however the fact is that the law is the law.
You can question all you like and I would encourage you to do so, but speeding is not questionning its law-breaking.

It is often hard to question those in power as they simply do not listen, I believe certain limits criminalize those that are not doing anything morally wrong. See the other thread on VRT to give an example of what those clowns in the Gov are up to. Have a read and see what you think.

I agree the law is the law, however the law can be an ass!:p

prospect

GreeBo wrote:

Would you agree that that that belongs in another thread?

??
Why?

This thread was about a suspected new covert camera on the N4, and coupled with the news of two more cameras on the M50 I was voicing my opinion about the pathetic guise of road safety that our governemnt use.

Every evening i watch cars pass my house at 80Km/h (and more). The limit is 80Km/h, but it should be no more than 50Km/h. In the last two year there has been one fatality and several serious accidents in a 1Km stretch of that road. It is places like this that should see a focus on road safety, where deaths and accidents ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

So, no I disagree, this is the very appropriate thread.

GreeBo

astraboy wrote:

Your just contradicting yourself there are you not? I do this do, if the speed I happen to be driving at is slightly over the limit(on rare occasion) then so be it.

Contradicting myself where?
I drive at or below the limit. I dont need to stare at my speedo constantly because I can control my car better than that.
Plenty of people cant, as brought up before they go up to and over the speed limit and then slow way down in a neverending cycle.

astraboy wrote:

I'm hoping to buy a high horse just like yours when I rob the next one.

Yeah, my crazy high horse of the law...