Outragous hidden speed camera on the N3

astraboy

Since the law is ALWAYS right?!:rolleyes:

I was referring to your pretentious way of arguing and refusing to see other peoples points, that is all.

GreeBo

astraboy wrote:

Since the law is ALWAYS right?!:rolleyes:

I was referring to your pretentious way of arguing and refusing to see other peoples points, that is all.

There is no right and wrong, its a law.
I am not refusing to see other peoples points, I have stated that there are lots of speed limits that are way too high. The law doesnt say you have to go that fast just that you cannot go any faster.
If you are not willing to obey the laws then you shouldnt be on the road.

If you can point out any pretension on my part I would appreciate it. All I have done is state the same point over and over again. Yourself and others believe that you have the God given right to ignore certain laws as you disagree with them.Personally I would consider that pretentious.

jmayo

Agree with Astraboy and Kaiser200 earlier.
It is not speed that kills but inappropriate speed that kills.
I saw a sign in NZ that said drive according to the conditions.
Something that never seems to appear in Ireland during these discussions.
Saying that it does not mean you drive 140kph either.

I drive Dublin - Mayo and back every few weekends and watching the way people drive is unbelievable.

You have a number of different categories of drivers:
the "can I read the samll print on your rear reg plate" trying to drive up your rear assuming that will enable you to move the car in front along faster,
the "Schumackers" that reckon a bend or crest is a good place to try an overtake,
the "Alonsos" that think hashed road markings are perfect place to overtake,
the "ould fellow" driving into the local town that reckon they should hog the white line and doing 60 in a 100 is ok because they want to count the neighbours cows and haven't much else to do,
the "I'm a very careful driver" that refuse to overtake a much slower moving vehicle (usually truck or aforementioned car) even when they have amble opportunity to do so,
the "I am not letting you overtake" that speeds up as you pass them,
the "look how much mud I can leave on the road" tractor that coats the road with shi** from his trialer or slurry spreader,
the "can't be bothered with mirrors or lights" tractor driver,
the "screw the lot of yous" that think the right carriageway on motorway or dual carriageway is for them and refuse to move into left even when nothing there,
the "braking night drivers" that hit the brakes everytime they see a hint of a car coming.
the "what are indicators" that pull out/in turn left/right and stop without any hint about what there next maneourver will be.
You encounter all of these multiple times.

Some people think that by driving 20 below speed limit you are safest person on road. You may stop quicker but you are probably cuasing an accident further behind you.

Having driven over 8000km overseas (Australia, New Zealand and US) in last few months, it is very obvious that Irish drivers are inept and dangerous.

Today I watched a woman on the N11, M50 doing 80 in the 120 whilst on the overtaking lane. There was nobody in the left hand lane so I moved into it and proceeded at the speed limit 120.
Traffic in the left lane was thus moving at the speed limit, she was not.
Did she move into the left lane? No, it was her lane and she was going to eventually turn right near Dundalk.

Just an opinion from an over taxed and frequently irate driver that every few weeks has to spend almost a working day of my life stuck on some of the third world roads that this fine top 5 economy has to offer.

Stark

jmayo wrote:

the "I'm a very careful driver" that refuse to overtake a much slower moving vehicle (usually truck or aforementioned car) even when they have amble opportunity to do so,

Everything else on the list does my head in, but I don't have a problem with someone who doesn't want to overtake. It might look safe for you to overtake but they could be driving a car that's underpowered and not have the acceleration needed to do the manouver safely. That said, if they have no plans to overtake, they should allow sufficient space so that you can overtake them and move into the space before overtaking the vehicle in front.

Sandwich

Does it all boil down two two distinct camps here ?

All agree that there is a speed for any given road/car/conditions beyond which the risk becomes unreasonably high.

All agree that there are inconsistencies or non-linear correlations between signed limits and the safety of many roads.


But:

Group A : Accepts that the UPPER limit of that speed is the signed speed limit. It may be inconsistent and flawed, but the law is the law, so they dont exceed it.

Group B : Consider exceeding the signed limit to be OK if, in their opinion, the signed limit is: flawed, excessively safe, or safer than another road which they consider more dangerous at or below its signed limit.


And never the twain shall meet.

Are some people just law abiding, and others not?

Stark

I abide to the law but I don't like it. I accept that upper limits are needed, but there are so many ridiculous limits in place around the country. I especially don't like that speed cameras are being put where they'd rake in the most people tempted to go over the limit rather than in places where they'd do the most benefit. It demeans the credibility of "They're there for your safety".

astraboy

GreeBo wrote:

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

Exhibit A Greebo.

I almost always keep to the law, I'm not going out mugging grannies, and if I exceed the speed limit by 10Kph on a large stretch of road I am sorry, but as I have stated before there are plenty of poor and very dangerous drivers out there that break no law yet cause as many accidents as people breaking the limit. You just seem obsessed with what is the law, and accepting that the law is ok and right. Why not question it? In fact I am a driver that gets passed out on most straight roads by more powerful cars because I am restrained and do my best to keep the limit, I sometimes go over it and have the balls to admit it, but you are one of those people that never ever breaks a traffic law(fair enough if you are, we are not all perfect).

My point is the Gov says speed is the cause of accidents because its simple, far more simple then acknowledging that we need better roads, reduced tax on cars so people can afford newer safer cars and of course vastly improved driver education. You just insist on latching onto the point that I, very occasionally break the speed limit. Try focusing on some of my other points RE road safety. Like I said, if it was just plain speed that killed everyone on the Isle of man would be dead from driving on roads with no limits.

Victor

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Would I be right in saying the the Dept. of Transport will tell the private opperators where the camera can and can not go?

No, the Garda will tell them.

luckat wrote:

It's a standard rule of behavioural science that if you want to moderate a particular behaviour, you must tackle it *when the behaviour happens*. So sending someone a fine or taking off penalty points days or even months later is not going to work.

Indeed. Thats part of the reason behind the privatisiation - the contractor will only be doing one operation, not deploying people for public events or reacting to events like the Garda, so times should improve.

What does work is having a bunch of cops on motorcycles who *politely* pull speeders in and fine them immediately.

Traffic Corp numbers are growing.

Mitch Connor

Sandwich wrote:

Does it all boil down two two distinct camps here ?

All agree that there is a speed for any given road/car/conditions beyond which the risk becomes unreasonably high.

All agree that there are inconsistencies or non-linear correlations between signed limits and the safety of many roads.


But:

Group A : Accepts that the UPPER limit of that speed is the signed speed limit. It may be inconsistent and flawed, but the law is the law, so they dont exceed it.

Group B : Consider exceeding the signed limit to be OK if, in their opinion, the signed limit is: flawed, excessively safe, or safer than another road which they consider more dangerous at or below its signed limit.


And never the twain shall meet.

Are some people just law abiding, and others not?

if i have understood the segmentation you've got going on there correctly, i disagree.

I do my best to not speed, and i haven't been ticketed yet so i'm doing ok - but i don't think that the sign posted limit on every road is the maximum speed that can be done safely, but i also think there are roads where the limit is way above what can be driven safely, so i think you need some more categories.

GreeBo

Tauren wrote:

i don't think that the sign posted limit on every road is the maximum speed that can be done safely, but i also think there are roads where the limit is way above what can be driven safely, so i think you need some more categories.

No he doesnt!
The question is not about whether the limit is too low, thats a totally separate argument, the question is do you stick the the limit.

astraboy wrote:

I almost always keep to the law, I'm not going out mugging grannies, and if I exceed the speed limit by 10Kph on a large stretch of road I am sorry, but as I have stated before there are plenty of poor and very dangerous drivers out there that break no law yet cause as many accidents as people breaking the limit.

But you cant use the fact that there are people doing worse crimes to make your ok./
If that was the case we could pick the worst thing that is possible and anything less than that is ok.

jmayo wrote:

Some people think that by driving 20 below speed limit you are safest person on road. You may stop quicker but you are probably cuasing an accident further behind you.

I disagree with this attitude, while you should get out of the way if you are going 20 below the limit you are not causing an accident behind you. The person causing the accident is the person not adjusting their driving to the conditions.

I also disagree that you have to overtake, you dont, you just cant stop everyone else from overtaking.

Mitch Connor

GreeBo wrote:

No he doesnt!
The question is not about whether the limit is too low, thats a totally separate argument, the question is do you stick the the limit.

Can you explain where i am misunderstanding the following so.

"All agree that there is a speed for any given road/car/conditions beyond which the risk becomes unreasonably high.
I agree with this, obviously there is a speed that simple can not be considered safe, regardless of the conditions at the time.

All agree that there are inconsistencies or non-linear correlations between signed limits and the safety of many roads.

I agree here as well, i have stated that i believe some roads are posted either too high or too low - i think i am still understanding what has been said.

But:

Group A : Accepts that the UPPER limit of that speed is the signed speed limit. It may be inconsistent and flawed, but the law is the law, so they dont exceed it.

So, does this mean group A would think, for instance, that 120 on the M50 is the maximum speed that can be safely traveled at? The second half of the sentence does seem to contradict this, but the first half, referencing the upper limit of the speed being the signed limit does, to me anyway, suggest that my understanding is correct. If it is correct, i do not agree that anything over 120 is automatically dangerous, so i do not fit into this category


Group B : Consider exceeding the signed limit to be OK if, in their opinion, the signed limit is: flawed, excessively safe, or safer than another road which they consider more dangerous at or below its signed limit.
"
Regardless of my opinion of the posted limit, i do not speed, so do i fit into this category? I'm not sure.

hermit

The First point I would like to make is to those that go on and on about the Government doing this and that or the Government not doing this or that.

It is not the sole responsibility of the Government to ensure that every single motorist drives safely and within the various speed limits put in place around the country. Every single person who goes out on the road, whether its in a Car, a Bicycle, or on foot has a responsibilty for their own safety as well as the safety of every other road user.

Just so you all know (and I know the majority of people know this) nobody has the right to put an other person's life in danger!!!

For those going on about speed cameras on motorways etc... so what... deal with it - nobody has the need to be going more than 100 km/h or 120km/h depending on the road. If you are doing under 100Km/h in in a 100 zone then you will not have to worry about speed cameras or Garda checks or Gatso vans at all.

Finally, people speak about road fatalities and serious injuries etc... on the roads (Yes they are to the forefront of motor safety concerns) but let's not forget about all the little accidents, bangs scrapes etc... where people are lucky enough to walk away from. These happen in huge volumes in Dublin (let alone the rest of the country) on a daily basis. This is what drives insurance rates sky high. These kinds of accidents are caused by speed and other traits of poor drivers such as lack of observation, crossing continuous white lines, failure to obey road signs/marking etc... and stupid things like not indicating (does anybody actually properly indicate on round abouts these days) and a whole host of other issues.

Speed cameras may help but alone are not going to change the behaviour of drivers on the road - the only solution to this is more Garda both Traffic Corps and on the beat. Thankfully recruitment is being expanded all the time!!

OldmanMondeo

hermit wrote:

Finally, people speak about road fatalities and serious injuries etc... on the roads (Yes they are to the forefront of motor safety concerns) but let's not forget about all the little accidents, bangs scrapes etc... where people are lucky enough to walk away from. These happen in huge volumes in Dublin (let alone the rest of the country) on a daily basis. This is what drives insurance rates sky high. These kinds of accidents are caused by speed and other traits of poor drivers such as lack of observation, crossing continuous white lines, failure to obey road signs/marking etc... and stupid things like not indicating (does anybody actually properly indicate on round abouts these days) and a whole host of other issues.

Spot on, how many time have people being held up by these type of accidents.

jmayo

Here is one example of how the policy of speed enforcement is linked to revenue gathering.
Last summer on the morning of a GAA semi final or quarter final (can't remember which) involving Mayo, the Mullingar Garda decided to place one of their white transit vans with speed camera on the first bit of decent road (first dual carriageway) that Mayo supporters making their way to Dublin were to encounter. Now if you have driven from Achill, Belmullet, etc stuck behind multiple cars along the way you may decide to pass them on the dual carriageway assuming that much safer than on single carriage roads.
But you go 8km over limit in order to do it. You are caught.
Why was that camera placed out at 10.00 - 10.30am on the very first piece of decent road and not on any of the single lane roads before the dual carriageway?

I have never seen it on that stretch of road before or since.
Someone please ocrrect me on this if they know better.
Yes it does appear on single lane carriageway after dual carriage.

It was pure and simple, lets catch the unsuspecting and make a few quid.
Road safety me ar**!
And no I wasn't caught by it.

blastman

hermit, most of those accidents aren't caused by speeding (as distinct from "speed" which is merely the rate at which you make progress), they're mainly caused by inappropriate speed or people not paying attention. Like the guy who ran into a workmate yesterday because he changed lanes without bothering to check whether there was anyone in the lane he wanted to be in first.

MrPudding

astraboy wrote:

My point is the Gov says speed is the cause of accidents because its simple, far more simple then acknowledging that we need better roads, reduced tax on cars so people can afford newer safer cars and of course vastly improved driver education. You just insist on latching onto the point that I, very occasionally break the speed limit. Try focusing on some of my other points RE road safety. Like I said, if it was just plain speed that killed everyone on the Isle of man would be dead from driving on roads with no limits.

I believe that better cars and safer roads will probably reduce the problem but they also introduce another factor, Risk Compensation. If you have a crap road and a crap car there is a certain amount of risk involved at travelling at a certain speed. Most people will have a limit to the amount of risk they are will to take. As the car and road gets safer the perceived, and actual, risk reduces. Some drivers and riders will increase their speed until they get to their “comfort zone” of risk.

I think it is generally accepted that this is the case, though I personally feel it should not be used as an excuse for not making cars and roads safer as not all people behave the same way.

What actually needs to happen in Ireland is a complete change in driver attitude. The lawlessness needs to be stamped out. People need to be taught they have to treat other road users with respect and courtesy. If we managed just those two things I think the difference would be amazing. Of course it is much easier to stick up a couple of speed cameras and put out some press releases. Afterall, you don’t actually have to reduce road deaths, just make it appear that you are trying.

hermit wrote:

The First point I would like to make is to those that go on and on about the Government doing this and that or the Government not doing this or that.

It is not the sole responsibility of the Government to ensure that every single motorist drives safely and within the various speed limits put in place around the country. Every single person who goes out on the road, whether its in a Car, a Bicycle, or on foot has a responsibilty for their own safety as well as the safety of every other road user.

Don’t quite agree with you there. The state has a responsibility to it citizens. If what you are saying was true why do we have any laws? Why make murder illegal? It is everyone responsibility to ensure they protect themselves.

I do not believe in a nanny state but some people simply need protecting from themselves let alone other people.

Driver are human and therefore governed by human nature. This dictates that if a behaviour is seen to be advantageous that behaviour will continue until such times as the advantage disappears. Drivers in Ireland break the laws willy nilly. They speed because they feel they get to their destination quicker, use bus lanes to skip a big queue of traffic, drive unaccompanied with no lessons because they can and doing the test is too much hassle.

This behaviour will continue because there really is no downside. The chance of getting caught is minimal so it is all upside. The only way to change this behaviour is to make it less attractive, PEOPLE DO NOT CHANGE ON THERE OWN. The only way, really, to make it less attractive is to punish the wrong doing, as it is supposed to be punished. Once people see the chance of getting caught increasing the advantage starts to decline. Then the behaviour changes.

One question hermit, who responsibility is it to punish wrongdoing?

hermit wrote:

Speed cameras may help but alone are not going to change the behaviour of drivers on the road - the only solution to this is more Garda both Traffic Corps and on the beat. Thankfully recruitment is being expanded all the time!!

Speed cameras, if used correctly will change behaviour. They are capable of changing behaviour immediately over a small area, i.e. the area they operate in. If deployed correctly they could have a massive impact on road deaths.



MrP

GreeBo

Tauren wrote:

So, does this mean group A would think, for instance, that 120 on the M50 is the maximum speed that can be safely traveled at?

No, they think that 120 is the maximum they can drive on that road. They will pick a speed on or below this limit to safely drive at.

Tauren wrote:

Regardless of my opinion of the posted limit, i do not speed, so do i fit into this category? I'm not sure.

If you do not speed then you belong in category A. You may not like or agree with the limit but you do not drive above it.

GreeBo

jmayo wrote:

Here is one example of how the policy of speed enforcement is linked to revenue gathering.
Last summer on the morning of a GAA semi final or quarter final (can't remember which) involving Mayo, the Mullingar Garda decided to place one of their white transit vans with speed camera on the first bit of decent road (first dual carriageway) that Mayo supporters making their way to Dublin were to encounter. Now if you have driven from Achill, Belmullet, etc stuck behind multiple cars along the way you may decide to pass them on the dual carriageway assuming that much safer than on single carriage roads.
But you go 8km over limit in order to do it. You are caught.
Why was that camera placed out at 10.00 - 10.30am on the very first piece of decent road and not on any of the single lane roads before the dual carriageway?

You just answered your own question.
It was put there because there were lots of people expected to start speeding on that bit of road.
If you are only going 8kph over the limit to overtake then I have to question your "need" to overtake in the first place.

MrPudding

GreeBo wrote:

You just answered your own question.
It was put there because there were lots of people expected to start speeding on that bit of road.
If you are only going 8kph over the limit to overtake then I have to question your "need" to overtake in the first place.

Even if you are behind a car travelling at the same speed or slightly slow than you, you are better off in front as they are blocking your view. This means you have less time to react and therefore it is technically safer to be in front of them.

Of course if everyone thought this there could be trouble. Thankfully I think it is only mentioned in advanced training where overtaking, when safe to do so, for a better view is considered to be good practice.

In short it is always safer to have an open and unrestricted view of the road ahead. Therefore it is perfectly valid to pass a car even when it is travelling near the speed limit for the road you are on.

MrP

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

jmayo wrote:

Here is one example of how the policy of speed enforcement is linked to revenue gathering.
Last summer on the morning of a GAA semi final or quarter final (can't remember which) involving Mayo, the Mullingar Garda decided to place one of their white transit vans with speed camera on the first bit of decent road (first dual carriageway) that Mayo supporters making their way to Dublin were to encounter. Now if you have driven from Achill, Belmullet, etc stuck behind multiple cars along the way you may decide to pass them on the dual carriageway assuming that much safer than on single carriage roads.
But you go 8km over limit in order to do it. You are caught.
Why was that camera placed out at 10.00 - 10.30am on the very first piece of decent road and not on any of the single lane roads before the dual carriageway?

I have never seen it on that stretch of road before or since.
Someone please ocrrect me on this if they know better.
Yes it does appear on single lane carriageway after dual carriage.

It was pure and simple, lets catch the unsuspecting and make a few quid.
Road safety me ar**!
And no I wasn't caught by it.

The very reason they put a speed check there is because yee were all going to go bananas racing along that piece of road. That would be illegal you see and also a danger to other road users. The traffic you had to overtake must have been snailing along if you had to go 8kmh over the speed limit to overtake it.

It's called enforcing the law and it only "makes a few quid" out of those breaking the law. Pity we can't make a few bob from your penalty points as well.

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote:

Even if you are behind a car travelling at the same speed or slightly slow than you, you are better off in front as they are blocking your view. This means you have less time to react and therefore it is technically safer to be in front of them.

I would counter that if the car in front is obstructing your view then you are too close to that car and should pull back from it until you have a better view of the road ahead.
This may well mean that the road ahead is now the car ahead but there will always be someting ahead of you. As long as you have the correct gap in front it shouldnt be a problem.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Just to add to Greebo's reply to MrPudding. If everyone was of the same mind as MrPudding we would have a crazy situation of people overtaking and in turn being overtaken as the person behind them want the safe position in front; person number 1 would then have to reclaim the front spot... I see a race coming on.

cson

I love the way the media constantly refer to crashes as 'accidents' despite the fact that in 90-ish% of the case these 'accidents' are caused by negligence by at least one party.

Also, whoever the Guard was that pulled his boss, Chief of the Western Traffic Division I think, for drink driving should be put in charge of the Garda Traffic Corps. It takes a lot of guts to take your boss like that.

jmayo

Srameen, the issue I have is that at that point there isn't usually a camera. It was put on probably one of the most safest sections of road in the area.
It could have been put further along where the road would be considered dangerous because you have junctions such as the turnoff for Longwood.

No, it was put near start of dual carriageway where people that have spent 100/120 kms (on cra* roads) stuck behind slower vehicles will pass and probably go above the speed limit as they do so.
Yes, I speed when I am overtaking slower moving car, because I believe it is safer to perform the maneouver as quickly as possible.
And unlike most of the so called safe drivers in this country I pass and get back into the left lane.
Thanks to our great roads we do not have the comfort of overtaking lanes every 4/5 kms so people have to overtake on few straight stretches available.

The whole road safety issue is not just about obeying speed limits but that is what is convenient for the government to focus on.
Then when the police do decide to do something about speed, they pick the best roads in broad daylight and fine weather.
They may catch people doing 5/10/15 over limit but do they ever catch the ones doing 30/40 over limit at night in worse conditions.

It makes more than a few quid off the motorists because speeding and traffic fines are seen as revenue gathering excercise.
One of the best ways I have seen used to control speed was a garda partol car cruising up and down, at the speed limit, along a stretch of road.
It was highly visible excercise and traffic proceeded at nice pace but it did not bring in any revenue.

As for the mantra just always obey the speed limit, drivers on M9/N7 the other day were probably not breaking the law, they were all probably within speed limit, but they were driving dangerously because of the conditions.

And if the govermnet do decide to use private contractors to setup speed cameras are they going to screw people in much the same way as the clampers operated?

Golferx

Gwendolyn Helpful Mango wrote:

The very reason they put a speed check there is because yee were all going to go bananas racing along that piece of road. That would be illegal you see and also a danger to other road users. The traffic you had to overtake must have been snailing along if you had to go 8kmh over the speed limit to overtake it.

It's called enforcing the law and it only "makes a few quid" out of those breaking the law. Pity we can't make a few bob from your penalty points as well.

Unfortunately it's this kind of sanctimonious cr4p that's all to prevalent in Ireland today.

Exceeding the speed limit (which is, after all, just a number dreamt up by a politician, it's nothing to do with what is actually safe on a particular stretch of road) is not necessarily dangerous.
To overtake another motorist, while doing 100kph, can be one hell of a lot more dangerous than if you could do 120kph, or 130jph, performing the manoeuver quicker and safer.

If the Gardai were genuinely concerned with Road Safety they would be at the side of the road with their high-vis jackets on, not hiding in the back of an old Ford Transit, posting out summonses in a couple of months time.

Good policing would allow the individual Garda to identify any driver who was actually driving dangerously and apprehend him/her for that particular offence. Unfortunately there is not the will in the top ranks of the Gardai, or the brains in the lower ranks to implement that.


@Gwendolyn Helpful Mango, there's the Law and there's Justice, they are not equal. Here's hoping you get caught at 55kph some day, whether or not you are driving dangerously. In the meantime, please try and open your mind a little and recognise what dangerous driving actually consists of, it is a little more than exceeding a politician's defined speed limit.

astraboy

hermit wrote:

Speed cameras may help but alone are not going to change the behaviour of drivers on the road - the only solution to this is more Garda both Traffic Corps and on the beat. Thankfully recruitment is being expanded all the time!!

I agree with you here. Speed cameras, used properly, have their place on Irish roads. However, they are one small facet of what needs to be done to reduce road accidents. Speed cameras will not catch someone driving dangerously 5KPH under the limit, yet they will catch someone edging over it, when the person driving dangerously is the one that will cause an accident.

I just believe we don't need to line up everyone that strays over the limit against a wall and shoot them, a policy of driver education and improved roads will take years but will reduce accidents over a long period of time, excuse me if I am being cynical but I believe the Gov are after quick results that look good, if they really cared they would see road safety as a much larger issue requiring years of work and planning. Its far better to have soundbites and figures now then save lives years down the road.....:(

astraboy

Golferx wrote:

Unfortunately it's this kind of sanctimonious cr4p that's all to prevalent in Ireland today.

Exceeding the speed limit (which is, after all, just a number dreamt up by a politician, it's nothing to do with what is actually safe on a particular stretch of road) is not necessarily dangerous.
To overtake another motorist, while doing 100kph, can be one hell of a lot more dangerous than if you could do 120kph, or 130jph, performing the manoeuver quicker and safer.

If the Gardai were genuinely concerned with Road Safety they would be at the side of the road with their high-vis jackets on, not hiding in the back of an old Ford Transit, posting out summonses in a couple of months time.

Good policing would allow the individual Garda to identify any driver who was actually driving dangerously and apprehend him/her for that particular offence. Unfortunately there is not the will in the top ranks of the Gardai, or the brains in the lower ranks to implement that.


@Srameen, there's the Law and there's Justice, they are not equal. Here's hoping you get caught at 55kph some day, whether or not you are driving dangerously. In the meantime, please try and open your mind a little and recognise what dangerous driving actually consists of, it is a little more than exceeding a politician's defined speed limit.

Well said! In fact on my journey home, if I need to pass out a slower driver I will exceed the speed limit for a very short period of time, as it reduces my time on the other side of the road. The other option is to let my 1.4L astra chug along maybe 10/12KPH more then the vehicle I'm passing out and spending more time on the side of the road which has a possibility of traffic coming directly at me! The first option, most people with common sense will agree, is the far Lesser of evils.

Also before the PC brigade jump down my through I only pass out when I can fully judge its safe to do so, how and ever nothing in life is certain therefore I prefer to spend as little time as possible on the right hand side of the road!:)

GTC

Some excellent comments here. Speed cameras are an excellent idea, if used correctly. Greebo, we'd like to see speed cameras set up outside schools with REDUCED limits. For example, several schools in our district have 80 kph limits, we'd love to see 50 kph zones for these schools with speed cameras deployed, not to catch people, but to CHANGE driver behaviour and thought process.

Every garda objects to speed cameras operating in so called "fish in a barrel" zones where motorists are seen as easy pickings. Whether or not the common citizen knows it or not, Gardai are ordered to target certain zones by senior officers, men chosen not for their intelligence or decision making skills, but for their bend over and take it attitude and their friends in higher places.

We were, believe it or not, recently targeting rural roads (our own idea) but were ordered off them by the powers that be, since it was not part of their "High Visibility" bullsh*t.

What can we do? Even extra numbers will not help us reduce road deaths, our seniors are morons.

GTC, Garda Traffic Corps

astraboy

Good to see a Guards point of view, not to mind one I agree with and find reassuring! I wish such common sense attitudes reached up to the higher levels of the force. Fair play to you for targeting rural roads, its a pity those above did not see its merits.

cson

GTC wrote:

What can we do? Even extra numbers will not help us reduce road deaths, our seniors are morons.

GTC, Garda Traffic Corps

Exactly what I believe is part of the problem on the roads. Thats why I have the height of respect for the Garda that pulled in his boss on the drink driving charge. Its people like him and GTC that should be in charge of the traffic division.