privatised speed cameras

patrickc

heard from a Garda today that the privatised cameras will definitely be up and running in September

afatbollix

balloix

Marcus.Aurelius

This system is set up so that the company in question profits from the contract, i.e. the costs of setup and ongoing maintenance. AFAIK the tickets etc still come from DOJ. Is Bertie's statement about the other cameras true for these, that they will be signposted for the first year or so?

Our man in Havana

Legislation to allow for them is not in place yet. With the election coming and the summer recess it is unlikely nothing will be ready by christmas.

OldmanMondeo

maoleary wrote:

This system is set up so that the company in question profits from the contract

Like any company would.

As long as there is proper regulation of the company and we don't end up with the same situation as wheel clampers, everything should be fine. Any one know who will decide where the camera will be placed?

Marcus.Aurelius

OldmanMondeo wrote:

Like any company would.

As long as there is proper regulation of the company and we don't end up with the same situation as wheel clampers, everything should be fine. Any one know who will decide where the camera will be placed?

All I meant was that the company won't benefit from fleecing motorists in Fish in a Barrel zones, so maybe they'll actually put them in intelligent places for a change

As for location, apparently it was decided by senior officers and road engineers. An obvious mistake as officers haven't a clue, unlike their rank and file counterparts and road engineers oversee roads, but don't know them all that well themselves.

Why didn't they ask rank and file members of the Traffic Corps and the public? The FF/PD govt is there to listen to us, not the other way round.

At any rate, the bill (Road Traffic Act 2006 No. 23 of 2006) has been passed and signed into law by the president.

See http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=542&docID=2820

C_Breeze

As if the M50 isnt horrible enough to drive on, and now this.

Is there anywhere where i can officialy read up on this like an article?

...if this is true, ill be avoiding the m50 altogether :mad:

I.S.T.

maoleary wrote:

All I meant was that the company won't benefit from fleecing motorists in Fish in a Barrel zones, so maybe they'll actually put them in intelligent places for a change

As for location, apparently it was decided by senior officers and road engineers. An obvious mistake as officers haven't a clue, unlike their rank and file counterparts and road engineers oversee roads, but don't know them all that well themselves.

Where are you getting this information?

johnny_adidas

C_Breeze wrote:

...if this is true, ill be avoiding the m50 altogether :mad:

surely not speeding would be an easier option

Seth Brundle

patrickc2006 wrote:

heard from a Garda today that the privatised cameras will definitely be up and running in September

Im sure it will be operated with the utmost integrity and professionalism just like the NCT and the clampers

MrPudding

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

Where are you getting this information?

When this idea was first floated there was an segment on Newstalk about it. It was very interesting and if implemented the way it was claimed on this show it will actually be a good system.

The first, and one of the most important points was that the private operator would be paid based on the number of checks carried out not the number of speeders caught.

The location of the speed checks would be decided by the Gardai and the road safety people.

The number of checks, and the times they are carried out, on certain types of roads will be a factor of the number of accidents that occur on that type of roads. So, if only 3% of accidents occur on motorways then only 3% of checks will happen there. If the operators decide to carry out extra ducks in a barrel checks on the M50 they will not get paid for the extra checks over and above that which they were requested to carry out. This also means that checks will be carried out at night and on smaller roads.

Now, if they are implemented in the manner above I am quite happy that revenue generation is not the primary concern.

I am not a fan of speed cameras but when they are used to actually reduce road deaths instead of out and out revenue generation I can stomach them.

But I am a realist, I actually doubt they will be implemented in the manner I mentioned above, but I will be very pleasantly surprised if they are.

MrP

patrickc

that's what the garda told me yesterday, he said there will be some fixed, some mobile and he said himself it's a pure stunt just for revenue

mik_da_man

MrPudding wrote:

The number of checks, and the times they are carried out, on certain types of roads will be a factor of the number of accidents that occur on that type of roads. So, if only 3% of accidents occur on motorways then only 3% of checks will happen there. If the operators decide to carry out extra ducks in a barrel checks on the M50 they will not get paid for the extra checks over and above that which they were requested to carry out. This also means that checks will be carried out at night and on smaller roads.

If it is worked like this I'll be happy.
But what are the chances??


Mik

I.S.T.

mik_da_man wrote:

If it is worked like this I'll be happy.
But what are the chances??


Mik

Yes, it does sound fair enough but I too am sceptical it will really work in this way. Once someone is going to make a profit out of this, it is way open to abuse.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

Where are you getting this information?

It has been well publicised that the operators will not be earning based on the number of fines issued and that the locations will be decided by consultaion with senior Gardaí.

Captain Trips

MrPudding wrote:

I am not a fan of speed cameras but when they are used to actually reduce road deaths instead of out and out revenue generation I can stomach them.

MrP

And the fact that we as the public have been presented with NO evidence showing how speed cameras reduce road deaths, I see no reason why we should have more speed cameras, at more cost to the tax payer, with continuing difficulties in:

a) road quality/surfacing
b) driver education
c) restriction on learner drivers driving at nighttime/motorways

So far we have:
a) a proposed system which will cost the taxpayers millions, like the voting machines and other waste
b) no evidence that the proposed system will have an effect to reduce road deaths
c) no evidence that speed cameras will increase road safety. They might reduce road saftey.


Have a look at the legal issues and reports on the wikipedia summary here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety_camera

- government ministers doubting it's effectiveness
- a judge rulling that the cameras were so untrustworthy and unreliable that evidence from them should be inadmissable
- digital film can be tampered with. A man successfully got compensation in Australia that the company could not prove that the digital pictures were secure (they used MD5). A company that gets paid to do checks like is being proposed could slap on number plates easily if the financial incentive was there (and it will be in Ireland)
- the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees you the right to not be forced to give evidence against yourself but: you are being forced to confess a crime with an incentive of a reduced "sentence" (2 instead of 4 points) - you are being given an incentive to confess to a crime without any access to full evidence. If you want that full evidence such as digital pictures that can be tampered with, you will risk 4 points. So: admit the crime, don't ask for a fair trial.
-

MrPudding

Captain Trips wrote:

And the fact that we as the public have been presented with NO evidence showing how speed cameras reduce road deaths, I see no reason why we should have more speed cameras, at more cost to the tax payer, with continuing difficulties in:

a) road quality/surfacing
b) driver education
c) restriction on learner drivers driving at nighttime/motorways

I agree with you, to a certain extent. As I have mentioned in other threads, as far as I am concerned the single biggest factor in road deaths, if feel, is driver education, or rather the lack of it. I believe driver education in Ireland needs to be completely overhauled. Unfortunately this is a mammoth and hugely expensive job which I cannot see happening anytime soon.

Road quality is without doubt a factor. Again, this is very expensive and the payoff, reduction in death, is not guaranteed. In fact there is an argument that as roads are made safer drivers increase speed so the risk remains the same.

I am not sure what you mean by point c.

Captain Trips wrote:

So far we have:
a) a proposed system which will cost the taxpayers millions, like the voting machines and other waste
b) no evidence that the proposed system will have an effect to reduce road deaths
c) no evidence that speed cameras will increase road safety. They might reduce road saftey.

Anything we try to reduce road deaths will cost millions. Does this mean we should not do anything?

I am sure there is evidence somewhere! I can’t check right now but I firmly believe that, if implemented correctly, the use of cameras can increase road safety and reduce deaths.

I made a rather long post on the subject in another thread, you will find it here if you are interested:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53068334&postcount=125

Captain Trips wrote:

Have a look at the legal issues and reports on the wikipedia summary here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety_camera

- government ministers doubting it's effectiveness
- a judge rulling that the cameras were so untrustworthy and unreliable that evidence from them should be inadmissable
- digital film can be tampered with. A man successfully got compensation in Australia that the company could not prove that the digital pictures were secure (they used MD5). A company that gets paid to do checks like is being proposed could slap on number plates easily if the financial incentive was there (and it will be in Ireland)
- the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees you the right to not be forced to give evidence against yourself but: you are being forced to confess a crime with an incentive of a reduced "sentence" (2 instead of 4 points) - you are being given an incentive to confess to a crime without any access to full evidence. If you want that full evidence such as digital pictures that can be tampered with, you will risk 4 points. So: admit the crime, don't ask for a fair trial.
-

This is very interesting and I presume it is something the government will make a rubbish attempt to resolve.

I have my doubts that the cameras will be implemented correctly in Ireland, that does not mean it is impossible to do it correctly.

MrP

gyppo

Captain Trips wrote:

c) no evidence that speed cameras will increase road safety. They might reduce road saftey.

I agree with all the points you made, with the exception of C.

Cast your mind back to the introduction of the penalty points system - how long ago is it now - 4 years?
For the first two months, everyone obeyed the speed limits, and there was a significant reduction in the number of road fatalities, and serious injuries.
Then everyone went back to their old ways, and there was a corresponding increase in RTA's.

The point is that an effective speed limit control system can help reduce road deaths.

Marcus.Aurelius

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

Where are you getting this information?

Newspapers, check out the Indo or Times archive for the dates. It's a while back, maybe before Jan

drdre

patrickc2006 wrote:

heard from a Garda today that the privatised cameras will definitely be up and running in September

, Im not looking forward to that.Hope they never get it started.

blastman

kbannon wrote:

Im sure it will be operated with the utmost integrity and professionalism just like the NCT and the clampers

How do you not bite your tongue when you said that?

Seth Brundle

blastman wrote:

How do you not bite your tongue when you said that?

with great difficulty!