Introduction of Speed Cameras

D_murph

javaboy wrote: »

Ok for a start the results of violent oppression at the hands of a colonial power will not be the same as the results of a government's somewhat misguided obsession with one aspect of the rules of the road. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

What load of crap are you 'suffering'? Having to obey the speed limits? If you're not happy with the speed limits, campaign to get them raised where appropriate. Contact your local representative or something constructive.

You'll be the first to know when I get caught for speeding. Besides, I don't have license plates on my high horse so the cameras can't catch me.

I'm not a brainwashed moron but your original statement was "worst part is that there are a lot of brainwashed morons out there that welcome this, yet another infringement on our freedom and privacy by this nanny state ."

I welcome this move (although not necessarily the reasons why it is happening, which I suspect has a lot to do with €€€) and I resent being considered a 'brainwashed moron' because of it. You can make your point without insulting a vast amount of people in one sweeping statement.

im glad you agree with the fact that its a misguided obsession. speed is but one factor of many in road deaths. unfortunately speed guns are not yet designed to detect the others such as dangerous overtaking, poor lane discipline etc.

im not suffering that much yet because the scameras have not been installed yet, thats yet to come :rolleyes:

theres a big difference between speeding (as the law states) and actually driving dangerously also FYI but a machine taking pictures on the side of the road cant tell this because its programmed to do its job.

programmed like a lot of people who actually believe this crap will change anything. auntie Gaybo must be delighted :rolleyes:. strange thing is that a lot of these fatal accidents are in the early hours of the morning and single car ones also and on back roads. you never hear that drinking and driving was a factor (as it surely must be) but speed speed speed. nothing else but the easy target :rolleyes:

speed cameras are about revenue and im glad you can see that. it looks great on the governments cv that they put them in place to do something to help the situation so its win-win for them but in reality it will not solve the problem and if you dont see that then you can carry on being deluded for all i care.

take a look at the poll results for example also while youre at it.

you are the only one that has reacted like this so far to my statements (which i still stand by btw) and that much alone speaks volumes in itself IMO.

"one sweeping statement" you say? i do believe in efficiency

javaboy

D_murph wrote: »

im glad you agree with the fact that its a misguided obsession. speed is but one factor of many in road deaths. unfortunately speed guns are not yet designed to detect the others such as dangerous overtaking, poor lane discipline etc.

im not suffering that much yet because the scameras have not been installed yet, thats yet to come :rolleyes:

theres a big difference between speeding (as the law states) and actually driving dangerously also FYI but a machine taking pictures on the side of the road cant tell this because its programmed to do its job.

programmed like a lot of people who actually believe this crap will change anything. auntie Gaybo must be delighted :rolleyes:. strange thing is that a lot of these fatal accidents are in the early hours of the morning and single car ones also and on back roads. you never hear that drinking and driving was a factor (as it surely must be) but speed speed speed. nothing else but the easy target :rolleyes:

speed cameras are about revenue and im glad you can see that. it looks great on the governments cv that they put them in place to do something to help the situation so its win-win for them but in reality it will not solve the problem and if you dont see that then you can carry on being deluded for all i care.

take a look at the poll results for example also while youre at it.

you are the only one that has reacted like this so far to my statements (which i still stand by btw) and that much alone speaks volumes in itself IMO.

"one sweeping statement" you say? i do believe in efficiency

Yes I think the obsession with speed is misguided but it is a factor in many road accidents and while it may not be the cause, it often increases the likelihood of a fatality when an accident does happen.

Speed cameras don't detect dangerous driving/overtaking etc. but they may reduce the burden on the traffic corps allowing them to spend more time enforcing the very things you mentioned.

I didn't say speed cameras are about revenue. I said I think the decision to bring them in now has been made for reasons related to money. Specifically, I think the government would not bring them in if they were expected to be a significant loss maker and also it is the most cost effective way of getting good figures/stats in the papers to say they are doing something about road safety. Speed cameras are not in themselves about money. If there were only penalty points but no fines for being caught, would you have a problem?

Please don't call me deluded. I'm not for a moment suggesting that speed cameras are a panacea that will stop all road accidents. I never did if you read my posts. I would rather see an announcement that 1,000 new Gardai were being recruited for the Traffic Corps who will be able to detect dangerous driving which cameras cannot.

gurramok

I voted yes and that is only because it see it as a good thing where the deaths happen on back roads and i assume thats where they'll plonk them.
If they start putting these cameras on safe roads as a revenue generating operation, it's two fingers to them! :mad:

Seth Brundle

gurramok wrote: »

I voted yes and that is only because it see it as a good thing where the deaths happen on back roads and i assume thats where they'll plonk them.
If they start putting these cameras on safe roads as a revenue generating operation, it's two fingers to them! :mad:

I suspect that many of these occur whilst under the posted limit but still too fast for the road.

eringobragh

gurramok wrote: »

I voted yes and that is only because it see it as a good thing where the deaths happen on back roads and i assume thats where they'll plonk them.

You know that they are going to be plonked in lovely little 'nestegg' spots.

gurramok wrote: »

If they start putting these cameras on safe roads as a revenue generating operation, it's two fingers to them! :mad:

2 Fingers ...and 80euro of your hard earned money..to be shared with a private company :rolleyes: ....Would you like a bag with that!!

gurramok

Agree there, it makes you think.
As most deaths occur on non heavy trafficked roads, how are they going to make it break even then due to low volumes?

More i think about this, i need to rescind my vote!

Steve

gurramok wrote: »

how are they going to make it break even then due to low volumes?

They're not - they're expecting to make €70m a year so guess where they'll be putting them.

D_murph

^X2. id put money on it :rolleyes:

Sandwich

Its better than nothing.
Every speeder thats caught is a good thing, but the habitual speeders will probably just get to know the locations and the benefit will be limited. The best strategy would be to place them on the high volume speeding routes (especially the temporary resticted ones, M50 etc) for revenue maximisation and maximum points issuing. Then plough all the fine revenue into a big increase in mobile speed traps. The aim should be to maximise the catches/points issued with a zero-sum revenue outcome.

Guy:Incognito

John J wrote: »

meander up to 101km/h in the wrong place on a national road six times in three years, and you're getting the bus.

People always trot this out as a reason. It's just not true. To "meander" up to 101kmph your speedo is probably showing anywhere from 108 to 115 so you know well you are over the limit.

I was checking with te sat nav the other day and at 35 mph on my speedo I was actually doing 31.

Automan

I was driving over in England yesterday (300 odd miles), while on the motorway I came across about 7 places which had the tell tale sign of fixed speed cameras (white lines in parallel on the road) but not one speed camera to be seen (were removed), the only place I seen a fixed speed camera was in a little village, (I think it was outside a school not sure of that).
As I was driving on the motorways I was at the limit while many cars flew by me, I dont see a problem with this as these roads were super and every one stayed in the right lanes there was no lane hoggers, nearly every one stayed in the left lane even though there was 3 lanes and only used the middle and outside lanes for overtaking, they defiantly know how to drive over there.
Also on the single lane roads people over took each other while the person being overtaken most of the time would move in a little to help the overtaking car, there was no beeping of the horn, flashing of the lights, damming you to hell for doing that evil thing, overtaking (unlike in Ireland were all the above happen).
There was also a lot of visual police on the roads either waiting at some junctions or driving in the traffic.
This really did show me how backwards this country is with regards to driving education/attitude, roads, policing.
And the sad thing is while they seem to be taking the cameras out (motorways) we seem to be putting them in.

Seth Brundle

Sandwich wrote: »

Its better than nothing.
Every speeder thats caught is a good thing, but the habitual speeders will probably just get to know the locations and the benefit will be limited.

Why do you say its a good thing? Are you of the opinion that all speed traps are placed in appropriate locations? Can you see any justification for exceeding the speed limit?
Is everyone who is caught speeding being a danger to other road users?
Feck it. I know you are deliberately trying to troll here so I'll say no more!

Niall1234

Some people just don't understand the difference between the "speed limit" and what is "a safe speed to drive at".

The two are very different and a lot of the time, the speed limits are totally inaccurate for standard of road in question.

Just look at the old Cork to Fermoy road. Reduced to 80 kph. Is it fair to get 2 penalty points and a 80 Euro fine if caught doing 100 kph on this road, eventhough 2 year previously when it carried a lot more traffic it was perfectly acceptable.

Sandwich, you are a troll looking for a response.

Guy:Incognito

Niall1234 wrote: »

Some people just don't understand the difference between the "speed limit" and what is "a safe speed to drive at".

The two are very different and a lot of the time, the speed limits are totally inaccurate for standard of road in question.

Just look at the old Cork to Fermoy road. Reduced to 80 kph. Is it fair to get 2 penalty points and a 80 Euro fine if caught doing 100 kph on this road, eventhough 2 year previously when it carried a lot more traffic it was perfectly acceptable.

Sandwich, you are a troll looking for a response.

Is it ok for me to decide what other laws I should and shouldnt obey at my own dicetion? Why is speeding any different. As already said, if theres a speed limit you dont agree with and have valid reasons (obviously better ones han whatever got the limit lowered in the first place) take it to your local TD.

Sandwich

kbannon wrote: »

Why do you say its a good thing? Are you of the opinion that all speed traps are placed in appropriate locations? Can you see any justification for exceeding the speed limit?
Is everyone who is caught speeding being a danger to other road users?
Feck it. I know you are deliberately trying to troll here so I'll say no more!

Not a troll at all, and annoying when your contribution is dismissed as such rather than accepted as a valid point of view.

Why do you say its a good thing? Because every little contribution to discouraging speeding is a step in the right direction. Yes it will be implemented imperfectly. Some people will be annoyed that they are placed in locations where to exceed the stated limit is still safe. But an imperfect implementation which hase some positive effect is better than none at all . Not whats is normal in this country I know - we talk for ever about finding a solution that suits everybody - and end up doing nothing.

Are you of the opinion that all speed traps are placed in appropriate locations? Yes. There is no such thing as an inappropriate location, but yes, some are better than others. But this relates only to the effectiveness of the implementation - relative effectiveness is no argument against the principal of implementing them.
Can you see any justification for exceeding the speed limit? Guards, ambulances.
Is everyone who is caught speeding being a danger to other road users? The short answer is yes but it needs explaining. They are not necessarily being a danger in every particular instance that they are caught (yes the driver on an empty motorway doing 130 is clearly not a danger to other road users). But the point is that they are showing themselves to be someone who is willing to override the rules of the road with their own judgement. It is this element that makes them a danger to other road users and so it is a good thing if they are caught. Some peoples judgement may be good, others may be poor - so we have national agreed limits - restricting the upper limit to the drivers judgement. Again, imperfect, and not always optimised to be correct on every road - but better than everyone setting their own limits.

Niall1234

Stekelly wrote: »

Is it ok for me to decide what other laws I should and shouldnt obey at my own dicetion? Why is speeding any different. As already said, if theres a speed limit you dont agree with and have valid reasons (obviously better ones han whatever got the limit lowered in the first place) take it to your local TD.

Before we start making laws, maybe the Government should focus on implementing correct speed limits too.

Judge Patwell has been throwing out speeding tickets on the old Cork to Fermoy road with speeds under 100kph as he claims that the NRA does not have the power to reduce the speed limts on roads.

A very interesting predicament which basically says that the speed limit on the road is 100kph yet the road signs show 80kph.

astraboy

AAAAA, Sandwich and his no holds barred approach to speeding and road safety.:rolleyes: FFS, there are loads of places in this country where the speed limit is too low. We don't all have the time to be emailing our TD's about inappropiately low limits, we know nothing would be done about it anyway.Speed cameras are a revenue generation exercise combined with the Government looking like they are doing something. Dangerous driving and plenty of other offenses will now go under the radar as this substitute for real policing becomes more prevelant.

There is no one silver bullet for road safety. Yes, a limited number of speed cameras in low limit residental areas or out side schools is fine. Catching people 10kph over the limit when the dogs on the street know it was'nt dangerous is not an improvement in road safety. Just because the government say its ok to do 100kph and not 110 does not make it prohibitively unsafe and we all know that.

As for the, "if I break the speed limit do you decide what other laws I can break too" argument, its stretching the point. Common sense and proper driver training should allow most people to select a safe speed taking into account conditions and traffic etc, regardless of the posted limit. A safe speed is often above or below the limit. Sort out driver training and roads first before screwing us for 80 euro for 10kph over the limit. The nanny state at its finest, a Scam in so many ways its not funny. What ever happened to allowing people to make certain decisions for ourselves? Sandwich, your comment about the guy doing 130 on the motorway is so far wrong I don't know where to start. Hes automatically a danger to everyone else cause he obeys with may be too low a limit? Your opinion on this matter is so far entrenched I won't even bother arguing with you.

eringobragh

Sandwich wrote: »

Not a troll at all, and annoying when your contribution is dismissed as such rather than accepted as a valid point of view.

Why do you say its a good thing? Because every little contribution to discouraging speeding is a step in the right direction. Yes it will be implemented imperfectly. Some people will be annoyed that they are placed in locations where to exceed the stated limit is still safe. But an imperfect implementation which hase some positive effect is better than none at all . Not whats is normal in this country I know - we talk for ever about finding a solution that suits everybody - and end up doing nothing.

Are you of the opinion that all speed traps are placed in appropriate locations? Yes. There is no such thing as an inappropriate location, but yes, some are better than others. But this relates only to the effectiveness of the implementation - relative effectiveness is no argument against the principal of implementing them.
Can you see any justification for exceeding the speed limit? Guards, ambulances.
Is everyone who is caught speeding being a danger to other road users? The short answer is yes but it needs explaining. They are not necessarily being a danger in every particular instance that they are caught (yes the driver on an empty motorway doing 130 is clearly not a danger to other road users). But the point is that they are showing themselves to be someone who is willing to override the rules of the road with their own judgement. It is this element that makes them a danger to other road users and so it is a good thing if they are caught. Some peoples judgement may be good, others may be poor - so we have national agreed limits - restricting the upper limit to the drivers judgement. Again, imperfect, and not always optimised to be correct on every road - but better than everyone setting their own limits.

For the Love of god.. Get Gay Byrnes D**k out of your backside.

astraboy

eringobragh wrote: »

For the Love of god.. Get Gay Byrnes D**k out of your backside.

Ha Ha! Funny cos its true!

Though I'm sure he'll report you for abuse or something now.:rolleyes:

eringobragh

astraboy wrote: »

Ha Ha! Funny cos its true!

Though I'm sure he'll report you for abuse or something now.:rolleyes:

I could have meant Duck for all you know

D_murph

astraboy wrote: »

Ha Ha! Funny cos its true!

Though I'm sure he'll report you for abuse or something now.:rolleyes:

wouldnt surprise me either if he tried cos all we hear from him is whining anyway :rolleyes:. "squeal like a pig boy" :D

this is a motors section, not a knitting one. is he lost?

astraboy

D_murph wrote: »

this is a motors section, not a knitting one. is he lost?

Possibly. I never see sandwich come on here unless its to rant about how great speed limits are and how its great that everyone going 1mph over the limit will be punished. I seriously doubt the guy has any notable interest in cars judging from his posts. Fair enough if he has, but it looks like he just likes coming on here to rise people.

heyjude

Its all about location, location, location............

Most fatal accidents occur on rural roads, a high proportion of these accidents involve just a single vehicle which has ended up in a ditch or collided with a tree, wall, telegraph post etc. It is likely that an inappropriate speed limit is a major factor in these crashes, as the cars while not 'officially' speeding, were still travelling too fast for the road and weather conditions.

The projected income from speed cameras indicates that very few will be placed on these rural accident blackspots, but that most will be placed on the busiest motorways and national primary routes, which are statistically the safest roads in the country.

The proposed cameras won't do 'as it says on the tin', in that they are supposedly being introduced to improve road safety and yet they will be placed on the roads with the fewest serious accidents. Just a thought in relation to any such cameras that are placed on rural roads, will these cameras work at night on unlit roads and if so, will the flash not distract already speeding drivers.

Overall I agree with the earlier poster, who suggested that cameras should be placed at traffic lights to catch red light jumpers, as on two occasions in the past few months I've nearly been run down on a pedestrian crossing by cars that didn't even slow down, despite the 'green man' being up and pedestrians being half way across the road in both cases.

I also feel that the introduction of the 600 speed cameras will be carried out in a discriminatory fashion, with some counties getting just a couple of cameras, while a huge proportion end up on the roads leaving our major cities especailly Dublin and the surrounding counties.In fact, they should allocate the cameras according to the fatal accident rate per county, so that given that the cameras are being introduced as a safety measure,the cameras go where they can do the most good.

I also believe that the introduction of the cameras could be used by garda management to cut back on the garda traffic corp, on the grounds that now that the cameras are catching the speeders, we won't need as many gardai out on traffic duty, which would defeat the purpose of the exercise as the cameras won't catch/prevent dangerous driving and may just displace dangerous driving to other roads.

astraboy

heyjude wrote: »

Its all about location, location, location............

Most fatal accidents occur on rural roads, a high proportion of these accidents involve just a single vehicle which has ended up in a ditch or collided with a tree, wall, telegraph post etc. It is likely that an inappropriate speed limit is a major factor in these crashes, as the cars while not 'officially' speeding, were still travelling too fast for the road and weather conditions.

The projected income from speed cameras indicates that very few will be placed on these rural accident blackspots, but that most will be placed on the busiest motorways and national primary routes, which are statistically the safest roads in the country.

The proposed cameras won't do 'as it says on the tin', in that they are supposedly being introduced to improve road safety and yet they will be placed on the roads with the fewest serious accidents. Just a thought in relation to any such cameras that are placed on rural roads, will these cameras work at night on unlit roads and if so, will the flash not distract already speeding drivers.

Overall I agree with the earlier poster, who suggested that cameras should be placed at traffic lights to catch red light jumpers, as on two occasions in the past few months I've nearly been run down on a pedestrian crossing by cars that didn't even slow down, despite the 'green man' being up and pedestrians being half way across the road in both cases.

I also feel that the introduction of the 600 speed cameras will be carried out in a discriminatory fashion, with some counties getting just a couple of cameras, while a huge proportion end up on the roads leaving our major cities especailly Dublin and the surrounding counties.In fact, they should allocate the cameras according to the fatal accident rate per county, so that given that the cameras are being introduced as a safety measure,the cameras go where they can do the most good.

I also believe that the introduction of the cameras could be used by garda management to cut back on the garda traffic corp, on the grounds that now that the cameras are catching the speeders, we won't need as many gardai out on traffic duty, which would defeat the purpose of the exercise as the cameras won't catch/prevent dangerous driving and may just displace dangerous driving to other roads.

Excellent post, some very valid points.

On a side note, if a camera is a placed in a location that is obviously for revenue generation, would it be illegal to post up a "temporary" sign waring drivers of it up ahead? I would hate to think that though we clearly live in a nanny state, our right to genuine protest has also been eroded.

D_murph

astraboy wrote: »

Possibly. I never see sandwich come on here unless its to rant about how great speed limits are and how its great that everyone going 1mph over the limit will be punished. I seriously doubt the guy has any notable interest in cars judging from his posts. Fair enough if he has, but it looks like he just likes coming on here to rise people.

its possible all right. it seems that he/she/hermaphrodite/whatever is a troll looking to start some crap on here with real motorists who know what the score is. at least we can only hope so anyway.

if on the other hand, he/she etc, actually believes the nonsense that he/she etc, posts then may god help him/her etc, :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sandwich

eringobragh wrote: »

For the Love of god.. Get Gay Byrnes D**k out of your backside.

Neither of us are into that as it happens. Normally he just phones me up:
"Sandwich old boy. Chaps over on Boards.ie getting carried away on the old speeding thing, dont your know. Never got the hang of that new fangled interweb malarky. Seems all the rage with the kids these days. Anyway, if you could just take a mo, help old uncle Gaybo out, set them to rights, do your bit, and give something back and all that sort of thing. Much obliged. Off for a burn on the Hog. Tootleepip."

Back to the topic. Despite opinion to the contracry am perfectly open to be convinced the intro of cameras is a bad thing. But please put a few arguments that stand up to some analysis.

1. They cost an awful lot. - As mentioned earlier, not only will they not cost, they will earn.
2. They are placed on Motorways where deaths simply do not happen. Again, erroneous. 1.Deaths do occur on motorways. 2. The majority will not be placed on motorways but identified blackspots on national roads. 3. Catching speeders on motorways influences driving behavious on other roads and so are still effective.
3. They only catch speeders. Do nothing for dangerous driving. Utterly illogical argument. "The CAB does nothing to reduce wife beating so it should be disbanded". You've got to do better than that.
4. Deaths went up in the UK after their introduction. Is the one point Ill grant is interesting, and if true is worthy of analysis. Please elucidate.
5. Instead more Gardai could be hired to clamp down on dangerous driving. Again, illogical. Its not an A or B choice. Cameras, or Gardai to clamp down on dangerous driving are not mutually exclusive.


It seems to me people are loosing their reason to justify something that they dont want. Rather than reasoning first and then comming up with an opinion.

galwayrush

A successful Speed camera will never collect a fine. I don't see any problem with a system where we know where they are as the idea behind them is to slow people down and of course once we know where they are, we'll make sure we're within the speed limit.
Of course, this being Ireland, they will be hidden,located on busy good standard roads and basically will end up being another stealth tax.:(

D_murph

Sandwich wrote: »

Neither of us are into that as it happens. Normally he just phones me up:
"Sandwich old boy. Chaps over on Boards.ie getting carried away on the old speeding thing, dont your know. Never got the hang of that new fangled interweb malarky. Seems all the rage with the kids these days. Anyway, if you could just take a mo, help old uncle Gaybo out, set them to rights, do your bit, and give something back and all that sort of thing. Much obliged. Off for a burn on the Hog. Tootleepip."

Back to the topic. Despite opinion to the contracry am perfectly open to be convinced the intro of cameras is a bad thing. But please put a few arguments that stand up to some analysis.

1. They cost an awful lot. - As mentioned earlier, not only will they not cost, they will earn.
2. They are placed on Motorways where deaths simply do not happen. Again, erroneous. 1.Deaths do occur on motorways. 2. The majority will not be placed on motorways but identified blackspots on national roads. 3. Catching speeders on motorways influences driving behavious on other roads and so are still effective.
3. They only catch speeders. Do nothing for dangerous driving. Utterly illogical argument. "The CAB does nothing to reduce wife beating so it should be disbanded". You've got to do better than that.
4. Deaths went up in the UK after their introduction. Is the one point Ill grant is interesting, and if true is worthy of analysis. Please elucidate.
5. Instead more Gardai could be hired to clamp down on dangerous driving. Again, illogical. Its not an A or B choice. Cameras, or Gardai to clamp down on dangerous driving are not mutually exclusive.


It seems to me people are loosing their reason to justify something that they dont want. Rather than reasoning first and then comming up with an opinion.

it seems to me that you are the only one here spouting this kind of BS.

message to everyone: do not feed this troll and it might go away

E92

I have never heard such absolute bullsh1t in my life as I have from Sandwich's posts. We have a troll, and we're all feeding him(including me:(). He must be Gay Byrne(if not, then he is his double).

At the end of the day, the obsession with speed limits is just simply frightening. I mean lets take a look at some of the recent fatalities. Like the one this morning, where people were driving on the wrong side of a dual carriageway. No speed camera or speed limit would have prevented the 2 deaths there. Same goes for the incident in west Cork yesterday, where the car went into the water.

As we all know, driving at a speed limit can be extremely slow, like it is on a dual carriageway where 100 km/h is far too slow altogether, or it can be far too fast, like it is in a housing estate(even 30 km/h feels a bit fast there).

We need to lose this stupid obsession with catching speeders and speed cameras, and instead need to start using our brains and applying common sense.

What about all the other laws on our roads? Do they not matter at all or something:rolleyes:?

chris85

Sandwich, you are a knieve, thinking the implementation of speed cameras will reduce fatalitys.

A major well publicised report last year (cant find it now but most people know about it) showed that motorways are the safest roads with a small number of deaths on the stretchs looked at (m1 particularly which has a lot of speeders) and showed that only a handful of deaths in the last 20 years compared to national roads.
Yet we all know the cameras will be placed on motorways or just after a motorway finishes.

Cameras should be placed on blackspots and warning should be given to drivers of the camera, this way they will slow down and thus there will be a definite reduction in speed at the camera. May not create revenue but we are trying to save lives so revenue shoud not come into it if the goverment is committed.

Sandwich do you drive?