lying b*****ds

mcwhirter

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Not sure where too start with you, could call you a name but I will be polite.

1. Cameras dont take up 2 tears of training or 2 of the 3000 Garda working in the entire country! they also pay for themselves as is proven by the amount of people claiming they are cash generators.

2. Erm, Unless the world is littered with idiots that have the mental capacity of goldfish having a speed camera fixed in a location DOES reduce peoples speeding in that area because most people, evidently not you, remember that the camera is there. That does not exist during checkpoints as people can not see into the future and predict if a checkpoint will exist on such and such a road tomorrow.

3. See point 2 again regarding long term effects. Most people, again not you evidently, have a memory thats sufficent to remember that the M50 has speed cameras on it and where.

4. Agreed, people do speed up again after the camera but my point concerning fixed cameras was that people do actually slow down in the first place. Maybe only for 200 or 300 metres but they still slow down. Therefore the camera works in that specific area.

5. How is letting people speed continiously safe?

6. Catching these drivers is not my objective, my objective is too stop them speeding on my road in the first place thereby protecting the children playing on said street. A camera would have the exact same effect as my little chat did. It would stop them speeding on my street. Its not changing their attitudes, Im not an idiot and perfectly aware that once they are away from my house they revert back to moron mode. However it would have a longterm effect if they continued to speed as speeding carries penalty points. " point or even4 maybe they wouldnt care but when the insurance starts getting expensive and a ban is closing in, well like I originally said, either they are taken off the road or they cop on. Both acceptable to me.



Too finish, I never stated that I had statistics too support my opinion. Its exactly that, an opinion based on enforcing road traffic law. seems funny that you attack my opinion as not being based on statistics but provide no statistics supporting your condemnation of me. Hello Mr kettle.

In relation to other comments. First of may I suggest thats its drivers and not Gardai that are too blame for the amount of carnage on our roads to begin with. Like every crime, its the criminal and not the police that should be held accountable for the crime itself. theres also no statistics kept showing how many crimes, deaths or crashes did NOT occur as a result of early Garda intervention.

Also, 3000 Gardai at any gievn time is not a lot for a country containing in excess of 5 million people. Howe many Gardai should be sent out to perform checkpoints? remember that many areas only have enough Gardai to put out 1 car with 2 Gardai in it. If that car is doing a checkpoint who is patrolling? Responding to calls? Combatting the thousands of other crimes being commited?

As for Gardai being broken down and put in the hands of the communities. well thats sounds fine in theory but should we become political? Canvass, make false promises and only deal with things that the Super promised at the last election? Should we have Gardai that are afraid to confront certain people because these people hold power in the area? Be working on the basis of upcoming elections? And thats not even considering that there are areas on this country that would have a significent number of criminals living in them. Can we honestly say that pressure would not be put on people to vote out the local Gardai by criminals? their associates, little speed racers, etc.

We can say it wouldnt happen but it happens a lot where the police are elected. Local town sheriffs in the US for example, many stories of them turning a blind eye because it meant they would not be elected otherwise.

Our system means Gardai have nothing to fear from doing their jobs honestly and are not hindered from going after people regardless of who. Look back to the 80s and you can see that policing and politics dont mix.

Thats a long reply,You have too much time on your hands. Maybe thats why the road deaths are higher than they should be:eek:

sam34

Stekelly wrote: »

BTW, should that not be Guardai?

no such word as guardai
singular = guard, plural = guards (english)
singular = garda, plural = gardai (irish)

cyclopath2001

I'd like to ask a question of the 'Ordinary Decent Speeders':

How should speed limits be determined? What factors should be taken into account?

ninty9er

sam34 wrote: »

no such word as guardai
singular = guard, plural = guards (english)
singular = garda, plural = gardai (irish)

Completey off topic but the words "guard", "guards", "gard", and "gards" are completely unrelated to any member of An Garda Síochána.

"guard" - someone who guards something - i.e security guard (pl. Guards)

"gard" - brand of some sort. Colloquial spelling i.e MacGard

"gards" no feckin idea.

"Garda" - ordinary member of the Civil Power of the Republic of Ireland (pl. Gardaí) - There is no English version of the ordinary officer of the force.

View Profile

Dosen't "Garda Síochána" translate to "guardians of the peace", hence a Garda is also a guard?!

ninty9er

View Profile wrote: »

Dosen't "Garda Síochána" translate to "guardians of the peace", hence a Garda is also a guard?!

That would be the organisation. But the Guardia Civil in Spain will always be referred to as that rather than the Civil Guard and Die Polizei in Germany will never be The Police even though that is what the translation is.

This is way off track, I'm just extremely pedantic on that particular issue. It bugs me a lot.

There is a set of titles for the organisation and they should be adhered to.

eringobragh

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I'd like to ask a question of the 'Ordinary Decent Speeders':

How should speed limits be determined? What factors should be taken into account?

Well 30% for example over the limit in a housing estate should be alot harsher penalty then 30% on a decent dual carriageway / motorway , this should be a less severe penalty IMO, Say 4 points for the latter as opposed to a certain percentage tolerance on motorways

I know I'll be held in the same contempt here as a kitten rapist but TBH i do frequently break the speed limit albeit on decent roads & conditions prevailing....break out the tar & feathers :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

cyclopath2001

eringobragh wrote: »

Well 30% for example over the limit in a housing estate should be alot harsher penalty then 30% on a decent dual carriageway / motorway , this should be a less severe penalty IMO, Say 4 points for the latter as opposed to a certain percentage tolerance on motorways:

The penalty scale comes later, once an agreed limit has been set. I agree a progressively more severe system such as Sweden looks interesting.

But, first, since the speeder's argument is that they break limits because they disagree with them, how do they think should speed limits themselves be set? Or more radically, as proposed by Astraboy, should there be no limits at all?

eringobragh

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The penalty scale comes later, once an agreed limit has been set. I agree a progressively more severe system such as Sweden looks interesting.

But, first, since the speeder's argument is that they break limits because they disagree with them, how do they think should speed limits themselves be set? Or more radically, as proposed by Astraboy, should there be no limits at all?

While i think that some limits are ridiculous, pulling the restriction would lead to pure chaos!! Having said that I think the RSA are focusing too much on the speeding being the root, main & only problem on our roads, it may well be a factor, granted in some cases, but theres alot to be said about dodgey overtaking ,etc.

On the disobeying of limits... I rarely , if ever have adhered to the speed limit of our primary roads (With exception of bad weather, road works etc), I've had a few times, i was nearly nabbed by the cops but touch wood they'd already a 'customer' when i passed :rolleyes:, However i religiously keep a proper speed around built up areas etc WHERE IT MATTERS

cyclopath2001

eringobragh wrote: »

While i think that some limits are ridiculous

OK, so we need limits, and this implies that where limits are agreed, people should normally stick to them.

Now, how do we reach agreement on what the limit should be?

UrbanFox

Entrapment involves a deliberate attempt to force or seduce a defendant to commit a crime. Unless an unmarked garda car drives up your exhaust pipe with two members on board waving guns at you and forcing you to speed in to a speed trap you can forget that line of argument.

If you are over the limit the offence is committed. End of story.

As far as speed limits go I think that the roads engineers in the local authorities that govern a particualar road are the people responsible for setting the values. I think that they have to answer for a lot as quite a number of limits seem to be unreasonably low given the character of the roads to which they apply.

Type 17

If all speed limits were set based on the road conditions (sight-lines, lane-width, surrounding entrances/premises, junctions, etc) instead of being simply based on the class of road, people mightn't perceive them to be unreasonable/unfair/stupid (which also leads many people to feel that all/most speed enforcement is also unreasonable/unfair/stupid).

Some limits are too low, but poor driver education can lead people to perceive many other limits as being too low as well (when in fact they have been chosen for reasons that are not immediately obvious), but those people's opinion is bolstered by their experiences with limits that are very obviously wrong.

We can all think of numerous roads that have limits are too low for the road in question, and many of these roads are the subject of Garda enforcement (UCD underpass on N11 in Dublin, for example).

Many more people would support the RSA's work, and Garda speed checks if they felt that they could trust the suitability of the speeds limits they encounter.

Steve

UrbanFox wrote: »

As far as speed limits go I think that the roads engineers in the local authorities that govern a particualar road are the people responsible for setting the values. I think that they have to answer for a lot as quite a number of limits seem to be unreasonably low given the character of the roads to which they apply.

The councillors ultimately set the limits based on the number of votes it will gain them with the locals come election time. They haven't got the balls to set realistic limits.

Type 17 wrote: »

If all speed limits were set based on the road conditions (sight-lines, lane-width, surrounding entrances/premises, junctions, etc) instead of being simply based on the class of road, people mightn't perceive them to be unreasonable/unfair/stupid (which also leads many people to feel that all/most speed enforcement is also unreasonable/unfair/stupid).

um... a bit like how the Americans do it - if there's a sharp bend, they'll put a lower limit on the bend than on the rest of the road.

Type 17 wrote: »

Many more people would support the RSA's work, and Garda speed checks if they felt that they could trust the suitability of the speeds limits they encounter.

Exactly - the point here is because of the ridiculous limits set in some places, the general motorist believes that all limits are set to a nannyistly low level. When they then go on a back road that is posted as 80kph yet is only suitable for 30kph - they believe the hype and end up dead.

I wish the high horse brigade posting in this thread about the 'speeders' would cop on to the fact that the posted limits are not always safe speeds - some are too high, some are too low. Exceeding the posted limit doesn't kill ikkle babies - bad driving does.

Seth Brundle

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Not sure where too start with you, could call you a name but I will be polite.

Good idea - its never prudent to call a mod names!

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

1. Cameras dont take up 2 tears of training or 2 of the 3000 Garda working in the entire country! they also pay for themselves as is proven by the amount of people claiming they are cash generators.

I never suggested that they did! Maybe you can show where I did. As for being cash generators, I totally agree with you but that should not be a reason for their existence!

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

2. Erm, Unless the world is littered with idiots that have the mental capacity of goldfish having a speed camera fixed in a location DOES reduce peoples speeding in that area because most people, evidently not you, remember that the camera is there. That does not exist during checkpoints as people can not see into the future and predict if a checkpoint will exist on such and such a road tomorrow.

Right, let me re-phrase what I said! Fixed cameras tend to momentarily slow traffic down. However, if you were to stand beside a camera for any length of time you would generally see three types of driver:
1. those speeding and unaware of the camera - they get flashed and in the majority of cases they slow down to absorb the impact of their actions and then they speed up again.
2. those driving over the limit approaching the camera & who slow down for the camera and then speed up once past it
3. those driving under the limit who usually slow down anyhow and return to their pre-camera speed.
There is rarely a long term change in speed because of the camera. A change in speed on a dual carriageway for 200 or 300m (these are your figures - I would say that it is more like 100-200m).

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

3. See point 2 again regarding long term effects. Most people, again not you evidently, have a memory thats sufficent to remember that the M50 has speed cameras on it and where.

I am fully aware of the location of all cameras. I also know that most people know where hose in their locality are. However, they still catch people out - this is evident from the numbers caught!

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

4. Agreed, people do speed up again after the camera but my point concerning fixed cameras was that people do actually slow down in the first place. Maybe only for 200 or 300 metres but they still slow down. Therefore the camera works in that specific area.

Which is what I was saying! However, as you agree that they have a short term effect, whats the point?

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

5. How is letting people speed continiously safe?

Where did I suggest that?

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

6. Catching these drivers is not my objective, my objective is too stop them speeding on my road in the first place thereby protecting the children playing on said street. A camera would have the exact same effect as my little chat did. It would stop them speeding on my street. Its not changing their attitudes, Im not an idiot and perfectly aware that once they are away from my house they revert back to moron mode. However it would have a longterm effect if they continued to speed as speeding carries penalty points. " point or even4 maybe they wouldnt care but when the insurance starts getting expensive and a ban is closing in, well like I originally said, either they are taken off the road or they cop on. Both acceptable to me.

I agree that people should not be speeding on your street. However, either a fixed camera or the occasional use of a mobile camera will not be sufficient IMO because most people will be too focused on their speedo to notice kids suddenly running out. Surely traffic calming measures would be more appropriate?

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Too finish, I never stated that I had statistics too support my opinion. Its exactly that, an opinion based on enforcing road traffic law. seems funny that you attack my opinion as not being based on statistics but provide no statistics supporting your condemnation of me. Hello Mr kettle.

Please read the first post of this thread! It is becoming more and more evident that cameras do not have the same effect as strong visible manual enforcement - this is evident at any speed check!

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

In relation to other comments. First of may I suggest thats its drivers and not Gardai that are too blame for the amount of carnage on our roads to begin with. Like every crime, its the criminal and not the police that should be held accountable for the crime itself. theres also no statistics kept showing how many crimes, deaths or crashes did NOT occur as a result of early Garda intervention.

I never suggested otherwise - I don't even recall mentioning it.

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Also, 3000 Gardai at any gievn time is not a lot for a country containing in excess of 5 million people. Howe many Gardai should be sent out to perform checkpoints? remember that many areas only have enough Gardai to put out 1 car with 2 Gardai in it. If that car is doing a checkpoint who is patrolling? Responding to calls? Combatting the thousands of other crimes being commited?

Where there is a will there is a way. If there was a serious concern at reducing fatalities on the roads then they could do it!

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

As for Gardai being broken down and put in the hands of the communities. well thats sounds fine in theory but should we become political? Canvass, make false promises and only deal with things that the Super promised at the last election? Should we have Gardai that are afraid to confront certain people because these people hold power in the area? Be working on the basis of upcoming elections? And thats not even considering that there are areas on this country that would have a significent number of criminals living in them. Can we honestly say that pressure would not be put on people to vote out the local Gardai by criminals? their associates, little speed racers, etc.

Am I supposed to respond to this given that you are steering way off track here (at least in regard to my post!)

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

We can say it wouldnt happen but it happens a lot where the police are elected. Local town sheriffs in the US for example, many stories of them turning a blind eye because it meant they would not be elected otherwise.

see my last retort!

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Our system means Gardai have nothing to fear from doing their jobs honestly and are not hindered from going after people regardless of who. Look back to the 80s and you can see that policing and politics dont mix.

FFS! Where are you going with this?

cyclopath2001

Type 17 wrote: »

We can all think of numerous roads that have limits are too low for the road in question, and many of these roads are the subject of Garda enforcement (UCD underpass on N11 in Dublin, for example).

This one has been moaned about for years. Surely by now, if the limit was wrong, popular opinion would have changed it? Or perhaps the limit is what people who live in the area want & people passing through, should respect that?

The existence of one or two such irritating limits is being used as an excuse to ignore the law in general.

The next step is enforcement.

How do we ensure that people stick to the limits when they should and not just when a random/occasional 'highly visiible presence' exists on the roads?

Type 17

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This one has been moaned about for years. Surely by now, if the limit was wrong, popular opinion would have changed it? Or perhaps the limit is what people who live in the area want & people passing through, should respect that?

Popular opinion has nothing to do with it - Seamus Brennan wrote to dozens of local authorities when he was minister for transport, telling them to re-examine the speed limits on specific roads, but most of them ignored the requests, or said that the speed limits were fine (scared of local voter backlash) - people who live in a given area are NOT traffic engineers and, although they should have a legitimate voice, the final decision should be taken by engineers, not influenced by non-expert voters and their weak-willed politicians. in fact, the sooner that politics is removed from all aspects of road safety, the safer we'll all be.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The existence of one or two such irritating limits is being used as an excuse to ignore the law in general.

It's difficult not to do so - there are more than just one or two of these irritating limits. It's a trust thing - once someone lies to you once about something important, it's hard not to think that they might be lying to you in everything that they say...

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The next step is enforcement.

Yes, enforcement is important, but if it isn't perceived as fair, the authorities will not have the support of the public. Hiding vans behind bus shelters is not being perceived as fair, even though the road in question might have a realistic speed limit and have a higher-than-average incident rate. In the UK, Gatso's used to be grey and often hidden behind road signs, but public opinion led to them being painted yellow and for many of them to be moved into view, but even now, they are still perceived as unfair by a significant percentage of the population (revenue before safety) - trust and perception of fairness is key to acceptance.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

How do we ensure that people stick to the limits when they should and not just when a random/occasional 'highly visiible presence' exists on the roads?

If speed limits were realistic, people would generally find that they were naturally driving within the limits, and if the speed limits were trustworthy (properly assessed on actual local conditions) people would accept that there must be a good reason and would slow down, rather than assuming that the limit was wrong and ignoring it.

It's true that some people use poorly designed roads and improper speed limits as an excuse for poor driving, but for the rest of us, it is a genuine problem - when I drive in Ireland, I find that I am driving for the conditions, but it is often over the speed limit by 10-15%*, so I have to keep an eye on my speedo and watch out for the Gatso vans. However when I drive abroad (Spain, Italy, Germany, UK, Netherlands) I find that I drive for the conditions as usual, but rarely stray over the (more realistic) speed limits, and I also find that, where the limit seems unnaturally low, there is usually a good reason and where there the reason for it isn't obvious, people still slow down, as they trust the limit anyway.

*By the way, I also find myself way under the limit, due to the conditions - eg: The 21 bends between the N11 and Enniskerry has a speed limit of 80kmh (set by the class of road) but for most of it, it is impossible to exceed about 60kmh without going off the road, and 50kmh is what most people drive at.

dingding

ninty9er wrote: »

"Garda" - ordinary member of the Civil Power of the Republic of Ireland (pl. Gardaí) - There is no English version of the ordinary officer of the force.

Constable

daveharnett

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This one has been moaned about for years. Surely by now, if the limit was wrong, popular opinion would have changed it? Or perhaps the limit is what people who live in the area want & people passing through, should respect that?

I suspect that you are being deliberately obtuse here. People are selfish. Of course I want everyone to drive past through my street at 10 kph. I will also kick up a hell of a fuss if anybody tries to raise 'my' speed limit (won't somebody think of the children etc).

Of course, I support sensible speed limits everywhere else, but I can't be bothered lobbying my council for every silly limit across the county.

For speed limits to be respected, they need to be consistent and apolitical. In other words, limits should be based primarily on road conditions (surface quality, marking, camber, incline, bends, visibility etc.), not on who lives on which road.

This does not mean that they cannot be sensitive to local needs too. I don't think anybody has a problem with slowing down for 200m for schools, community centres, sports grounds and so on, provided they have confidence that there is a good reason for the restriction.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The existence of one or two such irritating limits is being used as an excuse to ignore the law in general.

One or two. I give up. I have no agenda in this matter: the traffic corps hold no fear for me, I have never been stopped/fined for speeding, and am never likely to be. You are either a very successful troll, or a buffoon of the highest order.

daveharnett

ninty9er wrote: »

So would you prefer there were 2 Gardaí at the site 24/7 to inspect you vehicle as well as giving you points and a fine, or would you rather they were catching the scum, because they can't be in 2 places at once!

Given that "the scum" are habitual criminals, wouldn't actually pulling over cars/drivers that break the law help to detect them? If a real person is pulling over speeders, he/she can use discretion for minor lapses (<10% over or thereabouts), PROVIDED that everything else is in order. Gatsos can't detect drunk drivers, drivers with an outstanding warrants, drivers carrying drugs etc.

peasant

daveharnett wrote: »

You are either a very successful troll, or a buffoon of the highest order.

Or somebody with a point of view / agenda different from your own and unwiling to change same.

So, easy on the insults there, please

daveharnett

peasant wrote: »

Or somebody with a point of view / agenda different from your own and unwiling to change same.

So, easy on the insults there, please

No worries peasant. I've had my say, and I won't be having any further dealings with the poster in question.

Victor

how about where drivers can see them, im thinking maybe the penny hill side of the bus stop.

I don't know that stretch of road, but if they parkedon hte other side of the bus stop, potential passengers wouldn't see the bus coming.

unkel

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Or perhaps the limit is what people who live in the area want

In fairness, you are a lot less naive then some posters here make you out to be. I've heard it said that is exactly what happened to the speed limit at the location the OP is on about

unkel

Update: the talivan was there again this afternoon. Dunno if it's gone yet.

astraboy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The penalty scale comes later, once an agreed limit has been set. I agree a progressively more severe system such as Sweden looks interesting.

But, first, since the speeder's argument is that they break limits because they disagree with them, how do they think should speed limits themselves be set? Or more radically, as proposed by Astraboy, should there be no limits at all?

I said only on suitable roads, ie large motorways, should limits be removed. On national secondary routes, speed limits should ve raised. We have had basically the same limit since they were introduced decades ago, the years of progress in road design and car braking, handling and safety have not been taken into account. I have no issue with 50kph limits in built up areas.

Dual carraigeways should have a limit of at least 110-120kph where appropiate.

cyclopath2001

AstraBoy wrote:

We have had basically the same limit since they were introduced decades ago, the years of progress in road design and car braking, handling and safety have not been taken into account.

We have basically the same kind of drivers too.

I've no doubt that some limits could be reviewed, but the question I put is what are the factors that should be used to determine the limits? Mechanical capability and driving skill are important as you note, but what other factors would you consider?

Type 17

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

...the question I put is what are the factors that should be used to determine the limits? Mechanical capability and driving skill are important as you note, but what other factors would you consider?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#85th_percentile_rule

astraboy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

We have basically the same kind of drivers too.

I've no doubt that some limits could be reviewed, but the question I put is what are the factors that should be used to determine the limits? Mechanical capability and driving skill are important as you note, but what other factors would you consider?

Just off the top of my head:

Traffic volume,
Road design(width, surface, number of corners and how steep they are etc)
Weather conditions(perhaps variable limits with electronic signs, the limit raising on a clear day, decreasing on a foggy/wet day?)
Location(through the middle of the country, a town)
Number of enterances/exits to the road, and ajoing access roads
Road designation and main usage

And the kinds of driver we have today are far more trained then those on the roads 30 odd years ago, aspects like the NCT and safety advances, electronics etc should at least count for something in regard to limit increases on suitable roads.

TheNog

astraboy wrote: »

We have had basically the same limit since they were introduced decades ago, the years of progress in road design and car braking, handling and safety have not been taken into account.

BUt the difference is that we still a much higher volume of traffic on the roads than decades ago.
The better design of roads are being put into the new roads being built so in reality the majority of roads we have now are of the same design we have had for the last 20-40 yrs.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

We have basically the same kind of drivers too.

+1.

The same sort of drivers who are not trained properly when learning how to drive.

astraboy wrote: »

And the kinds of driver we have today are far more trained then those on the roads 30 odd years ago, aspects like the NCT and safety advances, electronics etc should at least count for something in regard to limit increases on suitable roads.

NCT, ABS, airbags etc were designed to increase safety at present speed limits, not so we can increase our speed. Remember all our safety measures are not infallible so if you were to crash at say 160kph into a tree no amount of electronics is going to save you.

TheNog

bop1977 wrote: »

what Assistant Commissioner Eddie Rock, head of the Traffic Corps said,

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20080316/ai_n24936945

what his boys in blue did:

luncan to naas rd (R136) just past the penny hill pub friday 25 07 08 5pm

notice how they tuck in behind the bus shelter

I have a question that has not being asked yet on this thread. How do we know this is a Gatso van? We cannot see the back window, not can we see the registration number and above all if you look at how close the van is parked to the bus shelter it creates a very small window of opportunity to detect a cars speed and take a picture. The speed gun normally used to register a cars speed can take over several meters distance of that car e.g. a car could travel anywhere from 20 meters to 100 meters before the speed is detected, depending of how far away the car is from the Garda operating the speed check. Also afaik a speed check can only be done on vehicles coming straight at the gatso to detect the true speed.

For all we know this van belongs to someone who lives in one of the houses in the background

Only an observation