Sneaky Cop on Templeogue Road!

Guy:Incognito

DubTony wrote:

eh ... you missed a bit. Obviously using italics wasn't enough. I'll make it BOLD for you

EH......I know what you meant, but I was saying it started with cops hiding behind the bus shelter and catching people, just like the gard in the op. Why will the same not happen further on down on the Templeogue road after people get caught by the "hiding" female gard on the bike?

DubTony

When she or some of her colleagues are there 5 or 6 times a week for about 18 months, then we'll have a real result. But I think we all know this won't happen. If it does, I'll be the first to praise them.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

junkyard wrote:

Seriously though, a lot of the speed limits aren't realistic. There are motorways close to me and stretches of them are 60kmph and other back roads with 100kmph limits on them, if you tried to do those speeds on them you'd kill yourself.

If you consider N routes (100kmh) to be "back roads" then you need to get out more and see the R routes (80kmh).:D

Seth Brundle

Stekelly wrote:

Unless they are speeding they have no reason to break suddenly and hard, if they are speeding then tough, it's their own fault.

Quite true. however, the reality is that whenever a driver sees a speed check, instinct gets them to hit the anchors. I see it all the time at the n4 Gatso. People driving under the 80km/hr limit still feel the need to slow down - many of them doing so suddenly.

GreeBo

seamus wrote:

Where did you get that from? Try driving in Dublin for a while. So many people see even as little as a reflective jacket or a car parked at the side of the road (doesn't even have to be a Garda), and they jam on and start driving waaaay below the limit.

Well I am assuming that the car in front is not coming to a complete stop.
If you have to slam on your breaks to avoid hitting them then you are either too close or going to fast.
I drive in Dublin every day.
Just because the reason the person is slowing down is a Garda doesnt mean that you dont have to be further away. What if the person suddenly noticed that there was a concrete block on the road and had to slow to swerve safely?

Mitch Connor

if the person in front brakes hard, if you want to maintain your distance behind them you would have to brake hard too.

GreeBo

Tauren wrote:

if the person in front brakes hard, if you want to maintain your distance behind them you would have to brake hard too.

If you are both breaking then you dont need the same distance between you (the whole point of the 2 second rule)

jmayo

There are multiple threads on these boards regarding speedtraps and the way they are operated. Might I sugest we have a poll to ascertain what people think regarding the way the garda are enforcing speedlimits.

Question:
Are the Garda speedtraps placed and operated in order to primarily ...
a. Get revenue from motorists
b. Make the roads safer

It would be intrestesting to see what is the general consensus.

copacetic

There was a cycle garda on the side of the drumartin link road in sandyford today, the new road with the 50k limit. Couldn't see did he have a speed gun but he was stationed behind the cars parked on the side so assume that was what he was doing.

On the bright side a motorbike guard and a tow truck where towing a car at the top of the road where it widens into 4 lanes for the junction. The idiot had parked right where it veers left to start to widen, nearly blocking the whole lane. Would love to be there to see his face when he gets back tonight!

Andrewf20

I really dont see anything wrong with the original pictures. Whether there has been deaths on the this road or not, doesnt really tell the whole story. The fact that us folks on boards and the drivers on that road saw the Guard with the speed gun means that we will think twice more often about speeding, knowing that the Gardai could be hidding anywhere.

j2u

why is it that the gaurds sometimes sneakily hide to catch people speeding and yet there are signs that warn people of fixed upcoming speed cameras?is it just me or does one thing contradict another here.on one hand they are trying to warn us so we slow down and dodge the bullet going by the camera and on the other there sneakily hiding to try and catch us out??always wondered that???

Tivoli

what are you all going on about, i am sure every single person who got nabbed by her was breaking the law

christ maybe the people with watch their speed from now on and not kill somebody someday

GreeBo

j2u wrote:

why is it that the gaurds sometimes sneakily hide to catch people speeding and yet there are signs that warn people of fixed upcoming speed cameras?is it just me or does one thing contradict another here.on one hand they are trying to warn us so we slow down and dodge the bullet going by the camera and on the other there sneakily hiding to try and catch us out??always wondered that???

maybe they want people to obey the limits on all roads and not just the ones that they know have speed cameras?
If you think that they could be anywhere maybe you will obey the limit everywhere.

_Kaiser_

There were 2 bikes and a squad car parked just under the Damastown bridge on the Blanch bypass this lunchtime - the usual cynical revenue exercise in the usual spot. Maybe it was the heat, but it just annoyed me today

So I duly rang Traffic Corps HQ (01 666-9800 if anyones interested) and got a Sargeant Flynn who's whole attitude was "well you can write in if you want" (but nothing will be done about it).

OK, admittedly a minor thing in the overall scheme of things, but it's an example of the attitude that has things the way they are in this country. :mad:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Kaiser2000 wrote:

...it's an example of the attitude that has things the way they are in this country. :mad:

Why? What way are they?

wingnut

DubTony wrote:

I slammed on the brakes so hard it completely obliterated the ABS and sent the car into a massive 360 degree spin leaving me staring in the direction of the cop who took about 5 seconds to cycle up to me. :rolleyes: Actually I'd barely reached 60k

Dude your car has serious problems if it does a 'massive 360 spin' when the ABS kicks in at 'barely 60KPH'. I've had to break suddenly at much higher speeds and the car stuck to the road.

Sandwich

Looks like a good spot to me - sneaky(=intelligent) guards is what we need to catch as many speeders as possible.

My only quibble would be the road might be a bit quiet and some of her time might be spent waiting (i.e. inefficiently) for the next speeder. Speeding spots should be chosen so that as soon as one driver has been fined, the waiting time (preferably zero) until the next car can be stopped is minimised. Maximise the catches per hour!

Then progress would be made to bring all the speeders up to 10 penalty points or off the road, leaving it safe for the law abiding drivers. Which would be nice.:)

miju

Tails142 wrote:

For going higher than 50km/h on a perfectly straight road in perfect visibility?

ever think about speed and proportionate stopping distance???? kid runs out that driver speeding is more likely to hit them than if they are going slightly slower

to be honest the Gardai are damned if they do damned if they dont :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

also the more speed cameras, checks the better people have to be physically caught / constantly see the gardai and fear the penalties before they'll eventually change their behaviour. i personally have no problem with them if it means im safer on the roads.

Duckjob

I wouldn't object to the guards diverting resources from motorway overpasses to places like this - I reckon 65kph in a built-up 50kph area is a lot more inappropriate than 135kph on a motorway.

j2u

GreeBo wrote:

maybe they want people to obey the limits on all roads and not just the ones that they know have speed cameras?
If you think that they could be anywhere maybe you will obey the limit everywhere.

if thats the case then why hide in gaps and do it so sneaky then?why hide in some parts and advertise and reveal speed dectectors in others?like u said if u think they could be anywhere u will abide by the speed limit then why have upcoming signs informin u to slow down before ur caught??

GreeBo

j2u wrote:

if thats the case then why hide in gaps and do it so sneaky then?why hide in some parts and advertise and reveal speed dectectors in others?like u said if u think they could be anywhere u will abide by the speed limit then why have upcoming signs informin u to slow down before ur caught??

Both appraoches are obviously going to be better than either on its own.
The speeders got caught whether the Cop is hidden or not.
If all cameras are visible then some will speed everywhere else, the hidden cameras are there to deter them.

HelterSkelter

GreeNbo, will you give it a rest. Do you never give up?

Marcus.Aurelius

HelterSkelter wrote:

GreeNbo, will you give it a rest. Do you never give up?

In fairness to Greebo, although he usually whinges that nobody should ever ever do anything against Bertie & co on main roads, I must admit that speeders in cities and towns are a menace. Good thinking on the part of the Garda in question. Morons speeding in towns kill so many pedestrians. Why speed in town? Why not just drive well on motorways?

Honestly this country makes no sense anymore.

overdriver

I do like your sig, maoleary.
I've no huge problem with Cops catching speeders on that stretch either, to be honest. Always kids there, and the park cycle lane spits cyclists out just after where she is ( going the other way).

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

HelterSkelter wrote:

GreeNbo, will you give it a rest. Do you never give up?

Why stop asserting your point when you are right? The cop in this case was doing a terrific job and protecting other motorists, and more importantly on this particular road, cyclists and pedestrians. Of course we should have hidden speed checks; otherwise speeders will just slow down when a cop is visible. Catch them unawares and they may think about it twice the next time.

HelterSkelter

Reginald Bumpy Gut wrote:

Why stop asserting your point when you are right? The cop in this case was doing a terrific job and protecting other motorists, and more importantly on this particular road, cyclists and pedestrians. Of course we should have hidden speed checks; otherwise speeders will just slow down when a cop is visible. Catch them unawares and they may think about it twice the next time.

There are pleanty of roads in the same area that warrent a speed camera more than Templeogue Road. It's just a money making exercise, pure and simple.

Golferx

Reginald Bumpy Gut wrote:

Why stop asserting your point when you are right? The cop in this case was doing a terrific job and protecting other motorists, and more importantly on this particular road, cyclists and pedestrians. Of course we should have hidden speed checks; otherwise speeders will just slow down when a cop is visible. Catch them unawares and they may think about it twice the next time.

God forbid anyone would slow down, the poor Gardai wouldn't be making any revenue. The Garda in this case was obviously wanting all drivers to exceed the speed limit, contrary to all so-called Government and Garda messages.

Here's hoping Reginald Bumpy Gut gets caught very soon.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

HelterSkelter wrote:

There are pleanty of roads in the same area that warrent a speed camera more than Templeogue Road. It's just a money making exercise, pure and simple.

Eh! Who suggested this road needed a speed camera? This was an adhoc check and that's what we need more of - not cameras that everyone knows about, drives slowly past and races away.

Golferx

Reginald Bumpy Gut wrote:

........ This was an adhoc check and that's what we need more of - not cameras that everyone knows about, drives slowly past and races away.

You're absolutley 100% wrong.

What that Garda should have been doing was standing in full visibility gear, actually slowing the traffic down, not hiding to ensure cars were at maximum speed.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Golferx wrote:

Here's hoping Srameen gets caught very soon.

Don't hold your breath old bean!!

Satisfaction that someone who was speeding was caught is quite different from hoping someone who does not break the law gets summoned!! |(It's obvious you never lost a loved one as a result of a speeding motorist.):mad:

GreeBo

HelterSkelter wrote:

GreeNbo, will you give it a rest. Do you never give up?

Have you noticed "?" on your keyboard before?
They are commonly known as question marks.
If you cast your eyes upwards you will see that j2u actually has 4 of them in his post, thus a question is being asked. What I did was give an answer. This kind of interaction has many forms and many names, some might say debate, some might say conversation.
Most would say that your post adds nothing and shows ignorance and a lack of ability to back up your opinion with anything meaningful.

maoleary wrote:

In fairness to Greebo, although he usually whinges that nobody should ever ever do anything against Bertie & co on main roads

So this is a political forum now? Where have I one mentionned that I support "Bertie & Co"?
If you cannot keep to the point (any point in fact) and are unwilling to argue your case at an adult level then I think I will add you to my ignore list.

golferx wrote:

What that Garda should have been doing was standing in full visibility gear, actually slowing the traffic down, not hiding to ensure cars were at maximum speed.

thus training people that they only need to obey the limit when they see a Garda. Whats that going to do for your speeding on country roads.

The attitude here is really laughable.
They have cameras on the M50, its a revenue scheme.
They have them on a busy city road fronted by houses, its a revenue scheme.
Can you all get together and agree on a specific road in the middle of no where that gets 2 cars a day and is known as a blackspot and we can put a camera there and catch 1 guy a year and change no ones driving habits?

Maybe then will you be ok with putting speed cameras where people are constantly speeding?

I cant believe that people are actually arguing against my last sentence, it just boggles the mind.

Golferx

@srameen, I sincerely hope you get caught because your attitude is all wrong. You should be campaigning for safer driving, you are not.

A speed limit does not determine whether a driver is driving safe, or not.

Marcus.Aurelius

GreeBo wrote:

Have you noticed "?" on your keyboard before?
They are commonly known as question marks.
If you cast your eyes upwards you will see that j2u actually has 4 of them in his post, thus a question is being asked. What I did was give an answer. This kind of interaction has many forms and many names, some might say debate, some might say conversation.
Most would say that your post adds nothing and shows ignorance and a lack of ability to back up your opinion with anything meaningful.


So this is a political forum now? Where have I one mentionned that I support "Bertie & Co"?
If you cannot keep to the point (any point in fact) and are unwilling to argue your case at an adult level then I think I will add you to my ignore list.

thus training people that they only need to obey the limit when they see a Garda. Whats that going to do for your speeding on country roads.

The attitude here is really laughable.
They have cameras on the M50, its a revenue scheme.
They have them on a busy city road fronted by houses, its a revenue scheme.
Can you all get together and agree on a specific road in the middle of no where that gets 2 cars a day and is known as a blackspot and we can put a camera there and catch 1 guy a year and change no onesdriving habits?

Maybe then will you be ok with putting speed cameras where people are constantly speeding?

I cant believe that people are actually arguing against my last sentence, it just boggles the mind.

Ahem, i was actually agreeing with you on this post. Calm down boy.

I think you're right, the odd speed check in towns and cities is 100% right, there are so many pedestrians and other road users tightly packed together that anything could happen. I don't condone hiding behind bushes or being sneaky, but I agree that we need to keep town speeders in check. They are truly dangerous.

And for the record, nearly everyone here has at some point posted their desired system. I for one would like to see cameras installed at points were roads are RE-EVALUATED and a new, lower speed limit is installed. e.g. a school in a 50 kph zone. Between the hours of 8 - 10 and 3 - 5 there should be a special speed limit of 30 kph within 500 metres each side of the school, checked by a speed camera at all times.

This would indeed change behaviour, because people can see the point of the camera, rather than arbitrary roads where there is minimal danger and minimal road deaths, but a high amount of speeding.

Backroads like in Kerry etc are dangerous because they have posted 80 kph limits. Almost 70% of accidents (RSA) happen on these roads, not because of so-called speeders, but because people have no idea of the actual appropriate speed limit.

Reduce the limits on such roads and install speed cameras there to CHANGE driver behaviour, that's what I want to see. Anyone agree?

Keith C

Reginald Bumpy Gut wrote:

not cameras that everyone knows about, drives slowly past and races away.

Bit of a generalisation there, not everyone speeds away from cameras. Sorry to hear you lost someone to a speeding motorist, but its obviously biased your opinion to anyone & everyone that goes over the speed limit.
Not everyone does it on purpose you know. But hey the PC brigade is always recruiting

Golferx

@g_bo: Your posts are so haphazard it's impossible for a proper debate to take place.


Can you tell of one speed camera which has significantly improved Road Safety in our country?

HelterSkelter

GreeBo wrote:

Most would say that your post adds nothing and shows ignorance and a lack of ability to back up your opinion with anything meaningful.

How do you know "most would say" this, have you conducted a poll of boards readers to come to this conclusion? And which opinion of mine are you referring to?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Golferx wrote:

What that Garda should have been doing was standing in full visibility gear, actually slowing the traffic down, not hiding to ensure cars were at maximum speed.

I don't want to get caught up in a personal wrangle with you (as you seem to perfer to get personal with your posts) but are you seriously suggesting that it's the Gardá's fault that people were speeding "at maximum speed"? So, you feel we should be conditioned to slow down only when we clearly see a Gardá in the distance and then we can speed to our heart's content when past the risk. It is not the responsibilty of the Gardá to slow the traffic; that's the responsibility of you and I as we drive.

HelterSkelter

GreeBo wrote:

Maybe then will you be ok with putting speed cameras where people are constantly speeding?

I cant believe that people are actually arguing against my last sentence, it just boggles the mind.

GreenNBo, how about this for a novel idea, put the speed cameras on the roads with the highest accident rates. As far as I can see they are currently on the roads with the highest traffic volumes and lowest accident rates.

Keith C

GreeBo wrote:

Can you all get together and agree on a specific road in the middle of no where that gets 2 cars a day and is known as a blackspot and we can put a camera there and catch 1 guy a year and change no ones driving habits?

A blackspot denotes someone died there, if a camera is put there it may have saved a life & may in the future save another (mine or yours who knows) so i wouldnt call that a waste.

The M50 is not a known blackspot, yes there are tipps & small accidents but most of these are during rush hour & the only people hurt are the insurance companies.
Lets get the speed cameras out in rural areas where fatalities occur & then put up the money generators, not the other way around.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Golferx wrote:

@srameen, I sincerely hope you get caught because your attitude is all wrong. You should be campaigning for safer driving, you are not.

A speed limit does not determine whether a driver is driving safe, or not.

You haven't the foggiest idea what I do, or do not, campaign for. A speed limit is only one of many efforts to ensure our children are safe to cross the road to school, or our parents are safe to make a manoeuvre on the open road, or our wives/husbands are safe to travel to their daily work. Safer driving is the responsibilty of us all and moaning about Gardá doing their job isn't the most effictive campaign I've seen recently.

Golferx

Reginald Bumpy Gut wrote:

I don't want to get caught up in a personal wrangle with you (as you seem to perfer to get personal with your posts) but are you seriously suggesting that it's the Gardá's fault that people were speeding "at maximum speed"? ................................

I didn't suggest that. But, by hiding in bushes, they are not slowing traffic down. By standing on the pavement, in full vis gear, he would make the roads a hell of a lot safer.

Reginald Bumpy Gut wrote:

..................... It is not the responsibilty of the Gardá to slow the traffic; that's the responsibility of you and I as we drive.

I disagree. The Gardai have a responsibility to enforce the Laws of the Land and they have a responsibility to help make the roads safer. While the primary onus is on the driver, the Gardai do have a role and a duty there too.

GreeBo

HelterSkelter wrote:

GreenNBo

:rolleyes: ok, so I am arguing with a 6 year old, I will remember that in future.

HelterSkelter wrote:

how about this for a novel idea, put the speed cameras on the roads with the highest accident rates.

Do you want to change peoples driving habits or just have photographs of a car seconds before it crahses? If a road has 5 cars a day but has had a couple of accidents in the last couple of years then its not worth putting a camera there, at best you *might* slow down 1 or two cars on that stretch of road.
We want people to slow down and drive properly on all roads, if someone obeys the limits and drives sensible on main roads then they are more likey to do the same on the odd rural etc road they are on.

HelterSkelter wrote:

As far as I can see they are currently on the roads with the highest traffic volumes and lowest accident rates.

Naturally roads with the highest volumes will have lower rates of accidents, percentages dont ya know.

Golferx

Keith C wrote:

A blackspot denotes someone died there, if a camera is put there it may have saved a life & may in the future save another (mine or yours who knows) so i wouldnt call that a waste.

The M50 is not a known blackspot, yes there are tipps & small accidents but most of these are during rush hour & the only people hurt are the insurance companies.
Lets get the speed cameras out in rural areas where fatalities occur & then put up the money generators, not the other way around.

The single biggest/most successful item I've seen for slowing people down is the roadside sign which flashes if someone is exceeding the speed limit. These signs have a RADAR detector and indicate the speed of your car as you approach, flashing if you're above a set level. This is effective because it shows the driver what they are actually doing and are not a draconian, selective, enforcement of the Law, catching out innocent drivers who might be driving perfectly safely but exceeding a limit.

HelterSkelter

GreeBo wrote:

:rolleyes: ok, so I am arguing with a 6 year old, I will remember that in future.

Do you want to change peoples driving habits or just have photographs of a car seconds before it crahses? If a road has 5 cars a day but has had a couple of accidents in the last couple of years then its not worth putting a camera there, at best you *might* slow down 1 or two cars on that stretch of road.
We want people to slow down and drive properly on all roads, if someone obeys the limits and drives sensible on main roads then they are more likey to do the same on the odd rural etc road they are on.

So let me get this straight, you want to put cameras on all roads to ensure people will drive at or below the limit at all times?

GreeBo wrote:

Naturally roads with the highest volumes will have lower rates of accidents, percentages dont ya know.

That is not true, you are contradicting yourself...

GreeBo wrote:

If a road has 5 cars a day but has had a couple of accidents in the last couple of years

That implies the road has an accident rate of almost 50%, yet has a low volume of traffic

Marcus.Aurelius

GreeBo wrote:

:rolleyes: ok, so I am arguing with a 6 year old, I will remember that in future.

Do you want to change peoples driving habits or just have photographs of a car seconds before it crahses? If a road has 5 cars a day but has had a couple of accidents in the last couple of years then its not worth putting a camera there, at best you *might* slow down 1 or two cars on that stretch of road.
We want people to slow down and drive properly on all roads, if someone obeys the limits and drives sensible on main roads then they are more likey to do the same on the odd rural etc road they are on.

Naturally roads with the highest volumes will have lower rates of accidents, percentages dont ya know.

Greebo, for the love of God, please read the posts. RSA states unequivocally that only 0.8% of deaths happen on motorways. And you've seen the M50 at rush hour. Percentages don't ya know!!!!!!!:D

GreeBo

Golferx wrote:

The Gardai have a responsibility to enforce the Laws of the Land

Golferx wrote:

However, for you, the simple fact of exceeding some arbitrary number lenders their activity illegal.

Golferx wrote:

You fail to see how a good driver can make safe progress in our country by driving safely, regardless of speed limits.

Anyone else confused?

Marcus.Aurelius

GreeBo wrote:

Anyone else confused?

No

Are you going to respond to my argument or are you just going to restate your original one and ignore us all as usual? Seriously Greebo, we want a proper discussion here.

GreeBo

HelterSkelter wrote:

So let me get this straight, you want to put cameras on all roads to ensure people will drive at or below the limit at all times?

No, I think there should be random, unannounced cameras on roads that contain the most amount of traffic aswell as less traveleld roads. The busier roads having priority.

HelterSkelter wrote:

That is not true, you are contradicting yourself...

If roads (a) and (b) have 1 crash per 100 cars but road (a) has 100 cars per hour and road (b) has 100 cars per month then I would put a camera on road (a), where would you put it?

HelterSkelter wrote:

That implies the road has an accident rate of almost 50%, yet has a low volume of traffic

how do you figure that?
5 cars per day = 664300 per year = 1328600 in !a couple of years"
so thats 1 crash per 664300 cars aka 0.00000015%. No?


Bottom line is I think cameras should be put in front of the most drivers, not the most crashes.

Marcus.Aurelius

Then there is no point. Irish drivers are not stupid. They want a GOOD reason to slow down, like dangerous roads with APPROPRIATE speed limits set and then enforced. Existing limits on rural roads (you know, where people are actually dying) are too high, reduce them and set up cameras to CHANGE behaviour, not rake in the millions for a nice juicy DOJ budget and a nice thick RSA report.

If the point of cameras is as they say, i.e. to change behaviour, then they must be on roads where behaviour is in need of change, i.e. where people are dying, i.e. rural roads (RSA Statistics!!!!)

GreeBo

maoleary wrote:

Are you going to respond to my argument

What argument of yours am I ignoring?
The last post of yours I saw you agreed with me:o