www.irishspeedtraps.com

Seth Brundle

Rovi wrote:

There's often a good bit of space on the central median where a vehicle would fit, would that be okay too?

It used to work for the lads down on the Portlaoise bypass!
H&S presumably put a stop to that though!

Anan1

Rovi wrote:

Being a Garda vehicle doesn't exclude it from the laws of physics should a mechanical failure or driver error send another vehicle off the main carriageway and into/across the hard shoulder.
Motorway bridge columns, emergency phones, signposts, purpose built Garda 'parking' facilities, etc, are all (in my experience and as far as I can recollect) protected behind earth banks and/or barriers, does this not say something about stopping in an unprotected position beside one of these roads?
Are you seriously suggesting that it's okay to park up on a motorway, provided you can get your wheels off the actual asphalt part?
There's often a good bit of space on the central median where a vehicle would fit, would that be okay too?

Perhaps you should write a letter to someone, outlining your concerns? Who knows, it may well be feasible to build an earth bank or some other type of barrier around the van.

Rovi

Anan1 wrote:

Perhaps you should write a letter to someone, outlining your concerns? Who knows, it may well be feasible to build an earth bank or some other type of barrier around the van.

Fair enough, you win. Have a nice day.

Keith C

Was recently in Edinburgh where they're seemed to be fixed speed cameras every 100m & the taxi driver saying they're well used to it etc.... I told him about the recent "sneaky cop" thread & he said they're would be uproar if police in scotland started hiding behind lamposts with hand held guns or being parked at side of motorway in unmarked car. Over there all speed checks are Hi-vis & blatantly stand out whether it be handheld or fixed.
His first reply to our methods over here was money making racket rather than safety awareness.

Anan1

Keith C wrote:

Was recently in Edinburgh where they're seemed to be fixed speed cameras every 100m & the taxi driver saying they're well used to it etc.... I told him about the recent "sneaky cop" thread & he said they're would be uproar if police in scotland started hiding behind lamposts with hand held guns or being parked at side of motorway in unmarked car. Over there all speed checks are Hi-vis & blatantly stand out whether it be handheld or fixed.

I don't know about that. I drove 1,000 miles around Scotland last month, including 3 days in Edinburgh. I had a Garmin sat nav with me which has a speed camera database. The thing gave me a lot of warnings, particularly around Edinburgh. Perhaps 80% of the time there were no signs, no visible cameras, just the sat nav warning. Hardly conclusive evidence I know, but my experience nonetheless.

Nuttzz

Anan1 wrote:

But it's not even on the hard shoulder?

mmmmm

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/8342-0.pdf

page 76

The Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking Regulations) 1997 deals with driving on motorways. Briefly, these Regulations

• require motorists to drive only in the direction of traffic flow;
• prohibit the driving on or across any part of the motorway which is not a carriageway;
• prohibit stopping or parking on any part of the motorway;

that van looked stopped on the motorway to me....

OKenora

Over there all speed checks are Hi-vis & blatantly stand out whether it be handheld or fixed.

Not only are they all like that but they legally have to be. If you were caught speeding by an un-marked van or at an un-publicised location you will get off with the speeding charge. Good example of this is in the UK's Police show, a handheld gun used by a Policeman is doing speed checks at a random placement for a special event but only is issuing warnings, because he knows the ticket will be thrown out of court as he is at an un-publicised location.

Also the criteria for placement of cameras is based on accident statistics. If a particular area is showing accidents due to speed a camera appears. The effect ? Everyone slows down, accidents due to speed drop. In Ireland a speeding cameras effectiveness is judged by how many tickets it issues. In most of the rest of Europe camera success is judged by the reduction in accidents in an area due to the camera and ideally a well placed camera in an accident blackspot will issue 0 tickets.

I have nothing against speed cameras and rarely have any need to worry about one but I do object to the flawed thinking involved in their placement if their primary purpose is to reduce road deaths.

Gardai would not run a drink driving checkpoint outside the HQ of the Irish Pioneers association, they setup outside or near pubs instead, makes sense to me. So why run the majority of speed cameras on roads where less than 2% of fatalities occur.

RobAMerc

Keith C wrote:

His first reply to our methods over here was money making racket rather than safety awareness.

Thats because thats what it is.
Why can't the government see that the covert cameras don't work and prove to only piss drivers off, cause stupid dangerous breaking maneuvers and fail to stop people speeding. Oh yea - they generate revenue thats why.

The UK police have admitted that covert cameras don't work and are trying to move away from them - however over there the revenue goes to the local council who couldn't give a flying f*ck about safety.

What can the Paddies gov't learn from that - ching ching - They too don't give a f*ck about your safety they care about you cash.

I have said it before and I will say it again - the "Speed Kills" mantra is propaganda - so tulips will believe that they deserve to be taxed for going 10kms over the limit on the M1 when the reality is poor driver ed and bad roads are causing deaths NOT speed.

We motoring enthusiasts must wholeheartedly support this site.

plissken

Nuttzz wrote:

mmmmm

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/8342-0.pdf

page 76



that van looked stopped on the motorway to me....

For god sake its a garda van it can stop at the side of the hard shoulder if it wants to simple as, its not causing an obstruction so what are the people who are moaning trying to say ? That its not acceptable for any vehicle to stop on a motorway how about ambulances should they attend to an emergency by driving slowly passed a crash and try to drag any persons needing attention into the ambulance

shrapnel222

OKenora wrote:

Not only are they all like that but they legally have to be. If you were caught speeding by an un-marked van or at an un-publicised location you will get off with the speeding charge.

is this the case here too? just wondering cause i got caught by one of those the other day, just where the N1 becomes the M1. a van was parked under the bridge and I was doing 90 instead of 80 as i was accelarating towards the start of the M1 about 200 yards further

dulpit

RobAMerc wrote:

I have said it before and I will say it again - the "Speed Kills" mantra is propaganda - so tulips will believe that they deserve to be taxed for going 10kms over the limit on the M1 when the reality is poor driver ed and bad roads are causing deaths NOT speed.

Now there's a boy racer attitude if i've ever seen one... So you're saying that by flying along the road at top speed you'll be perfectly safe, it's only if you're driving on a bad road or have little experience driving that you'll ever be in danger in a car?

Come off it, its obvious if you're burning down any road at high speeds you're gonna be a danger to yourself and more importantly others. What if something unexpected happens? If you're going at speed you'll be in trouble straight away...

While i agree (somewhat) that the speed camera setup is wrong (there should be more done on those windy back roads where Johnny & PJ race their Nova's) I disagree whole heartedly with you saying that speed doesn't kill.

Get your head out of your ass and grow up will you?

prospect

plissken wrote:

For god sake its a garda van it can stop at the side of the hard shoulder if it wants to simple as, its not causing an obstruction so what are the people who are moaning trying to say ? That its not acceptable for any vehicle to stop on a motorway how about ambulances should they attend to an emergency by driving slowly passed a crash and try to drag any persons needing attention into the ambulance

So, by your rationale it would be okay for myself and my wife to stop there and have a picnic!
Perfect, that bridge will keep the rain off.

Seth Brundle

dulpit wrote:

Now there's a boy racer attitude if i've ever seen one... So you're saying that by flying along the road at top speed you'll be perfectly safe, it's only if you're driving on a bad road or have little experience driving that you'll ever be in danger in a car?

I believe that their point was that the constant mantra of 'Speed Kills' is inaccurate. It should be 'Inappropriate Speed Kills'. Driving 10, 20 or 50 km/h over the limit will not suddently kill someone. Am I as liable to kill someone on the M1 at 3am if I drive at 16km/h as I am at driving at 49km/h outside a school at 4pm? One is under the limit whilst the other is over the limit.
Our road network is quite poor. Compund this with our inclement weather and poor driving standards driving
can be dangerous both over and under the speed limit. However, blaming all incidents on one factor is wrong. Hence why the word 'inappropriate' should be actively used!

RobAMerc

dulpit wrote:

Now there's a boy racer attitude if i've ever seen one... So you're saying that by flying along the road at top speed you'll be perfectly safe, it's only if you're driving on a bad road or have little experience driving that you'll ever be in danger in a car?

Don't be ridiculous thats not what I am saying and you are surely clever enough to know it.

dulpit wrote:

Come off it, its obvious if you're burning down any road at high speeds you're gonna be a danger to yourself and more importantly others. What if something unexpected happens? If you're going at speed you'll be in trouble straight away...

I never said I encouraged speeding of any type did I ?
What I said was the "Speed Kills" catch phrase is just that a catch phrase and its wrong because thats not whats causing accidents.
Yea it is a factor in every accident because theres no good speed to hit another object but its not the cause of accidents - Inappropriate speed is.
People thinking "Speed Kills" often happily kill themselves at 80kph because they think they're safely below the speed limit.

dulpit wrote:

Get your head out of your ass and grow up will you?

Thats the best part of your post - But luckily with it up there I don't have to listen to anyone elses crap.

markpb

prospect wrote:

So, by your rationale it would be okay for myself and my wife to stop there and have a picnic!
Perfect, that bridge will keep the rain off.

Nope, he meant the Gardai (unlike you and your wife) are not subject to the Road Traffic Act(s) when performing their duties. They are legally allowed to be there. Whether they _should_ be there or not is a different matter.

OKenora

is this the case here too? just wondering cause i got caught by one of those the other day, just where the N1 becomes the M1. a van was parked under the bridge and I was doing 90 instead of 80 as i was accelarating towards the start of the M1 about 200 yards further

Nope UK and Irish law are totally different on this. UK law promotes the usage of cameras TO REDUCE SPEEDS. Irish law promotes the usage of cameras to generate large amount of speeding tickets but other than that have no evidence to indicate that a camera has actually saved a single life yet. Having said that the legal requirement for liveried vans and signs for cameras has been reduced to a recommendation in recent years as it was being abused as a method of avoiding fines, however all cameras and vans, even new ones, remain liveried to this day.

Good example of a revenue camera, Carnaross, small collection of a shop, pub and a few houses on the main Cavan/Dublin road. The village is a 50kph zone reducing from the 100kph outside. Number of fatalities in last 10 years, 0. number of serious injuries in last 10 years, 0 (from NRA stats). So why is this a regular haunt of the Gardai now with mobile cameras ? What accidents are they stopping ? What road safety will they improve ? Improving on a 0 rate is pretty hard, but they do get a lot of drivers doing 55-60kph in a 50kph there......anyone want to guess at the reasons for them checking speed there then ?

mike65

Tom McGurk was interviewing the PR chappie at the Road Safety Authority, it was a rather fruitless encounter with Mr PR doing his job perfectly ie giving not an inch to McGurks arguments. Then the Friday Panel assembled and the three all agreed the attitude of the RSA was completely at odds with what they claim to be setting out to achive.

When the Gardai are not perched on ramps on motorways and dual carraigways and can be seen on rural link roads and outside schools and shopping centres then I'll belive they are doing it for the right reasons.

Mike.

RobAMerc

The Ozzies see a funny side as usual

Seth Brundle

OKenora wrote:

Nope UK and Irish law are totally different on this. UK law promotes the usage of cameras TO REDUCE SPEEDS. Irish law promotes the usage of cameras to generate large amount of speeding tickets but other than that have no evidence to indicate that a camera has actually saved a single life yet.

Isn't it strange to find that the UK have one of the lowest fatality rates in Europe whilst we have one of the highest?

OKenora wrote:

Good example of a revenue camera, Carnaross, small collection of a shop, pub and a few houses on the main Cavan/Dublin road. The village is a 50kph zone reducing from the 100kph outside. Number of fatalities in last 10 years, 0. number of serious injuries in last 10 years, 0 (from NRA stats). So why is this a regular haunt of the Gardai now with mobile cameras ? What accidents are they stopping ? What road safety will they improve ? Improving on a 0 rate is pretty hard, but they do get a lot of drivers doing 55-60kph in a 50kph there......anyone want to guess at the reasons for them checking speed there then ?

I mentioned on here before about how I drove from Virginia to Carnaross with a squad car about 1/2 mile ahead of me. He was doing about 80mph as was I. When I turned the left turn that leads you into carnaross, there he was setting up his speed trap!

Cyrus

the outsourcing of speed cameras will happen soon and the objective is to monitor roads with a history of accidents, revenue collection isnt an objective at all

Alun

Cyrus wrote:

the outsourcing of speed cameras will happen soon and the objective is to monitor roads with a history of accidents, revenue collection isnt an objective at all

Yeah, right :rolleyes:

MrPudding

Cyrus wrote:

the outsourcing of speed cameras will happen soon and the objective is to monitor roads with a history of accidents, revenue collection isnt an objective at all

Hopefully. I heard someone from the RSA and the gardai on Newstalk a long time ago explaining how it would work. If they set it up like they said it will actually be a system that should reduce deaths.

The next step would be to officially release the location of the fixed cameras and the areas where the mobiles will operate, this would increaee the effectiveness of the cameras, though obviously reducing the revenue generated considerably. But that is OK at it is all about safety not revenue generation, isn't it?

MrP

mik_da_man

shrapnel222 wrote:

is this the case here too? just wondering cause i got caught by one of those the other day, just where the N1 becomes the M1. a van was parked under the bridge and I was doing 90 instead of 80 as i was accelarating towards the start of the M1 about 200 yards further

I know that spot, if it's going north and I'm pretty sure it is!, then it's at least 1 Km to the end of the 80 zone.

If it's not going north then i aplolgise

Nuttzz

plissken wrote:

For god sake its a garda van it can stop at the side of the hard shoulder if it wants to simple as, its not causing an obstruction so what are the people who are moaning trying to say ? That its not acceptable for any vehicle to stop on a motorway how about ambulances should they attend to an emergency by driving slowly passed a crash and try to drag any persons needing attention into the ambulance

but the law is the law it doesnt say that certain vehicles can stop on the motorway it says no one can stop on the motorway, im not saying its right but thats what it says, remember the law had to be changed when they tried to ban using handheld phones as ambulances drivers who used non handsfree radios were liable for penalty points for using them.....

OKenora

For fixed cameras
* there should be a co-located speed limit and camera sign not more than 1 km from the camera; and
* there should be a co-located speed limit and camera sign within the same view as the camera.

For mobile cameras
* there should be a co-located speed limit and camera sign in advance of the point of entry to the site or route
* there should be camera signs at regular intervals of around 1 km throughout the site or route; and
* these camera signs should be co-located with the regularly spaced speed limit repeater signs throughout the site.

Thats a few quotes from UK laws governing SAFETY cameras, a small but imo significant difference in naming and a refelction of their different usage in Ireland. These cameras have been proven to work over many years and the method of their deployment with warnings is seen as effective.

UK road safety has been shown to be improved, Irish road safety has taken many setbacks. General European road safety has reduced the amount of fatalities at a rate equal to or exceeding the rate you would expect based solely on improvements in car safety. Irish road fatalities however are near as high now as they were 10 years ago. In the case of SVA's they are rising still......

Whats even more ridiculous, up to 2004 13% of 2 vehicle accidents involved excess speed, 40% involved cars driving on the wrong side of the road and 26% involved other driver action, 66% of our accidents because of crappy drivers traveling below the speed limits.......This bad drivers argument is supported by over 61% of accidents happening in the dry, near 52% of them happening on straight roads and 88% of our accidents attributable to driver error.

It's time to address the real problems in a suitable manner. The NRA should stop boasting about us being 7th in the league table of fatal road accidents in Europe (which is pathetic tbh) and start aiming for being 1st or 2nd like Sweden and the UK are.

We have a massive advantage now as we are years behind other countries in this area and can look and see what other countries have done and what works and does not work. But instead of taking this and building on it, we are doing it the Irish way from scratch, making it up as we go along and trying to make road safety pay for itself. WHY OH WHY.

the outsourcing of speed cameras will happen soon and the objective is to monitor roads with a history of accidents, revenue collection isnt an objective at all

But who gets the proceeds of the fines to offset their costs ? Oh yes the private company.....now that surely is an incentive to them to place cameras where they generate maximum revenue and not maximum effect, As I said a perfectly placed camera thats visible will make 0 revenue as it will make people slow down, hence why the locations are secret as that would make revenue 0 and what private company wants to work in a 0 profit (and likely a loss making) business area.

markpb

Nuttzz wrote:

but the law is the law it doesnt say that certain vehicles can stop on the motorway it says no one can stop on the motorway, im not saying its right but thats what it says, remember the law had to be changed when they tried to ban using handheld phones as ambulances drivers who used non handsfree radios were liable for penalty points for using them.....

ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) REGULATIONS, 1997 wrote:

Save where otherwise expressly provided in these Regulations, a prohibition on the entry of a vehicle to a road or an area or the prohibition on the stopping or parking of a vehicle imposed by these Regulations shall not apply to

( c ) a fire brigade, an ambulance, or a vehicle being used by a member of the Garda Síochána in performance of the duties of that member;

.

mike65

Top Gear illustrated the nonsense of cameras being the be-all-and-end-all of safety, when they showed the growth in the number of cameras on UK roads against a near flatline of fatalities. More of one will not by magic lead to reduction in the other.

Stated UK govenment policy for camera instalation.

Mike.

NeMiSiS

Does anyone know who won the tender for the cameras?
Please, and thanks
Tom

Cyrus

OKenora wrote:

But who gets the proceeds of the fines to offset their costs ? Oh yes the private company.....now that surely is an incentive to them to place cameras where they generate maximum revenue and not maximum effect, As I said a perfectly placed camera thats visible will make 0 revenue as it will make people slow down, hence why the locations are secret as that would make revenue 0 and what private company wants to work in a 0 profit (and likely a loss making) business area.

Incorrect the tender is for a fixed price and has no link to fine collection

MrPudding

OKenora wrote:

But who gets the proceeds of the fines to offset their costs ? Oh yes the private company.....now that surely is an incentive to them to place cameras where they generate maximum revenue and not maximum effect, As I said a perfectly placed camera thats visible will make 0 revenue as it will make people slow down, hence why the locations are secret as that would make revenue 0 and what private company wants to work in a 0 profit (and likely a loss making) business area.

According to the discussion I heard from the Gardai and the RSA payment will be for the number of checks carried out, not the number of people caught. So there will be no difference to the amount the operator is paid regardless of how many speeder he does or does not catch.

Further, the locations would be based on casualty / incident rates. If an operator is told that 2% of his check should be on the M50 and he does 10% there, he will only get paid for the 2%.

As I have said before, if the system is implemented as these guys discussed it should be a good system. But, what are the chances?

MrP