Speeding ticket on Naas Road

GreeBo

zod wrote: »

stop stating the obvious as if it somehow backs up your argument.

If its so obvious then why speed?

zod wrote: »

How low a speed limit would you have to see on the parts of the N7 before you would say "Well thats just silly, surely the road department got that wrong ?" 40kph, 30kph .. 10kph???,

a) its not up to me
b) do you think 100kph is too low? 80kph?
c) how high is too high? I see limitless autobahns being trotted out here with great frequency

zod wrote: »

People should be able to give an honest critism of laws without this immediate counter "if your not with us your against us, won't somebody please think of the children" dogma.

Criticise all you want, but dont use speeding as your means of criticising! If you think abortion should be legal you campaign for it, you dont go around performing them and then bitch and moan because you get arrested for it.

cyclopath2001

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

The objective is to stop crashes, don't you agree?

You're over-simplifying.

zod

Firstly I don't speed, but I do agree with the OP that the speed limit is too low on that part of the road.

Finally picking some note worthy points from what the AA view on speed limits :

∗ All speed limits should be reviewed in a formal programme with a timetable and budget. Getting the right speed on the right road is the single most pressing road safety issue – the benefits of a review are more than proportionate to the costs.

∗ Speed limits should be reconciled to the character of the road (and vice versa).

∗ Where the character of the road and the limits must be at odds, there must be an explanation of why the limit is what it is (eg “deceptive bends”).

∗ Cameras must not be deployed so that the enforcement of speed limits is perceived to be for revenue raising rather than casualty reduction.

* Authorities must implement speed limits that respect the integrity required of a national system. If they set speed limits too low and ignore police objections, they undermine motorists’ acceptance.


I believe they know a thing or two about road safety.

TheNog

fineass66 wrote: »

i was driving between Cahir and Cashel and a van passed out 2 lorries and 2 cars just passing rockwell collage , which is on a bent . i phoned the guards with the name on the van and the number and was told , we have no cars available and did i know that i would have to come in and make a statement . i said no prob i will be there in 5 min but the guard told me he was to busy to do it now ,just couldnt be bothered as far as i could see .Just wondering what THE NOG thinks about this, has he got an excuse for this too.....

Hee hee had to reply to your post.

I have no excuse nor have I ever given any type of excuse on boards before. What I have given or tried to give is an insight into the job of the gardai. Whether you have taken that on board or not then I don't know what else I can do.

Anyways moving on. What you can do is call the station again and make an appointment to see a Garda or go in and make the complaint in person. Make a statement and go to court to give your evidence.

If you don't have any success there or if you feel that this garda you spoke to on the phone didn't do a good job then I suggest to you to make a formal complaint against his or her attitude. There is no problem with that and I always mention it to people to make a complaint if they feel they have one.

cyclopath2001

zod wrote: »

Finally picking some note worthy points from what the AA view on speed limits :....I believe they know a thing or two about road safety.

The AA is a commercial enterprise that makes money from providing a range of services to motorists. As part of its advertising and PR campaign it says things that will gain the approval of motorists in the hope of getting more business.

They're telling you what you want to hear.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The AA is a commercial enterprise that makes money from providing a range of services to motorists. As part of its advertising and PR campaign it says things that will gain the approval of motorists in the hope of getting more business.

They're telling you what you want to hear.

Which of the AA points posted do you not agree with?

leon8v

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You're over-simplifying.

How could that possibly be over simplifing it? Is the objective of a road safety campaign to safe lives or not to save lives????

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The AA is a commercial enterprise that makes money from providing a range of services to motorists. As part of its advertising and PR campaign it says things that will gain the approval of motorists in the hope of getting more business.

They're telling you what you want to hear.

Your arguments on this topic really are very weak indeed. I suppose the Swindon town council who were on the last word last week or the week before warning the Irish to think very hard about the implementation of speed cameras all over the place as they have gone against the idea having found it wasnt the solution are only saying what they think we want to hear as well.
I think its you thats only hearing and believing what you want to here and arent open to an opinion that doesnt agree with your everyone should travel at 10kph everywhere plan.
You are not John Gormley by any chance are you???:D

OldmanMondeo

zod wrote: »

Firstly I don't speed, but I do agree with the OP that the speed limit is too low on that part of the road.

As I have pointed out in htis topic a few pages ago the reasons why there is a 60kph limit on this strech.

1. 2, yes, 2 set of traffic lights to allow people cross from the Luas to the industrial estate. This morning several cars broke the red light at the first set beacuse they were going to Fast and not paying attention to the lights.

2. There are enterences to both Harris Trucks and the slip road into Woodies before the major junction (Longmile/Nangor road/Naas road). Thin of the amount of Trucks that pull into here, they have to slow long before cars, therfore they become a moving hazard.

3. At the slip road into Woodies, have a look to the left next time and you will see the plaque put down by a family of someone who was killed here.

4. The nightclub at the Red Cow, we all know how stupid people behave when drunk and end up running out on to roads.

There is also 2 bus stops on this strech and no cycle lanes. Now I am not a road engineer or decide speed limits, but I would agree with the limit on this strech.

GreeBo

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

The objective is to stop crashes, don't you agree? So why would you agrue against concentrating efforts where 73% of fatal crashes occur which is the rural roads?



Because they cause people to slow down at accident black spots which is where they should only be placed.

So why will a camera do more than the current "Accident Black Spot" signs we have? Or are you just trying to make money from the speeders?

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

It's quite simple, if there is an area where a lot of crashes are occuring and it is determined they are caused by speed, put a speed camera there. The notify people about it's existance.

Again, the black spot signs do the exact same thing and yet you tell me they dont work as there are still accidents on these roads. Do you think, perhaps, that people are so used to ignoring speed limits that they are not going to care? Letting them know where a camera is on a 20km journey wont change anything, you just move the potential accident to the bend after the one they slowed down for.
Unless you change how people drive you wont stop accidents.
You change behaviour by conditioning, you cannot condition someone without large exposure.
Having 50 cameras on minor roads in Ireland wont change anything, not enough people will get caught and learn that speeding doesnt pay.

GreeBo

leon8v wrote: »

the Swindon town council who were on the last word last week or the week before warning the Irish to think very hard about the implementation of speed cameras all over the place as they have gone against the idea having found it wasnt the solution

But I thought speed cameras would solve world hunger AND stop speeding?
Why do you think you know better than a council who has, in all probability, done more research on the topic than you have?

I.S.T.

GreeBo wrote: »

So why will a camera do more than the current "Accident Black Spot" signs we have? Or are you just trying to make money from the speeders?

Is the answer not obvious to you?

GreeBo wrote: »

Again, the black spot signs do the exact same thing

They do not. If you don't believe me watch the break lights on cars approaching a accident black spot road sign and compare to the break lights approaching the fixed gatso camera on the N4 opposite Spa Hotel, there is a big difference.

GreeBo wrote: »

and yet you tell me they dont work as there are still accidents on these roads. Do you think, perhaps, that people are so used to ignoring speed limits that they are not going to care? Letting them know where a camera is on a 20km journey wont change anything, you just move the potential accident to the bend after the one they slowed down for.
Unless you change how people drive you wont stop accidents.
You change behaviour by conditioning, you cannot condition someone without large exposure.
Having 50 cameras on minor roads in Ireland wont change anything, not enough people will get caught and learn that speeding doesnt pay.

Well we'll juts have to agree to disagree on that point.

leon8v

GreeBo wrote: »

But I thought speed cameras would solve world hunger AND stop speeding?
Why do you think you know better than a council who has, in all probability, done more research on the topic than you have?

Do you actually read the posts that are put up here or just churn out the same old lines no matter what.
I agree with what the swindon council said. Since the start of this topic I have said that speed cameras littered all over the safest stretches of road in the country are not the answer, and this is what these guys seem to be saying as well and as you say they have done more research than I have.
Read the actual posts before you jump to conclusions.

zod

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The AA is a commercial enterprise that makes money from providing a range of services to motorists. As part of its advertising and PR campaign it says things that will gain the approval of motorists in the hope of getting more business.

They're telling you what you want to hear.

The Government uses the AA in consultations

Your actually a troll or you've lost all perspective.

fineass66

TheNog wrote: »

Hee hee had to reply to your post.

I have no excuse nor have I ever given any type of excuse on boards before. What I have given or tried to give is an insight into the job of the gardai. Whether you have taken that on board or not then I don't know what else I can do.

Anyways moving on. What you can do is call the station again and make an appointment to see a Garda or go in and make the complaint in person. Make a statement and go to court to give your evidence.

If you don't have any success there or if you feel that this garda you spoke to on the phone didn't do a good job then I suggest to you to make a formal complaint against his or her attitude. There is no problem with that and I always mention it to people to make a complaint if they feel they have one.

thanks for the reply Thenog lol just tryin to see ur reaction good reply though...

GreeBo

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Is the answer not obvious to you?


They do not. If you don't believe me watch the break lights on cars approaching a accident black spot road sign and compare to the break lights approaching the fixed gatso camera on the N4 opposite Spa Hotel, there is a big difference.

So you are saying that people will only stop speeding to avoid getting caught and penalised and not to avoid an accident?
By that logic (and I agree with it btw) and by letting everyone know where these fixed cameras are you will need a fixed camera on every single dangerous stretch of road and bend in the country or, as I said earlier, you are just moving the accidents around a bit. Doesnt sound any safer to me Im afraid.

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Well we'll juts have to agree to disagree on that point.

And thats fine, its a debate after all. there is no right answer, otherwise it would have been done and proven somewhere already.

cyclopath2001

leon8v wrote: »

How could that possibly be over simplifing it? Is the objective of a road safety campaign to safe lives or not to save lives????

What you have said is different and closer to the truth than what IrishSpeedTraps has said. He referred to speed traps only in the context of preventing crashes. Not in the context of saving lives.

leon8v wrote: »

Think its you thats only hearing and believing what you want to here and arent open to an opinion that doesnt agree with your everyone should travel at 10kph everywhere plan.

You've heard me proposing a 10kph limit, which in fact, I have never proposed.

zod wrote:

The Government uses the AA in consultations.

Examples?

zod wrote:

Your actually a troll

Grammar problems?

mondeo

If you use motorways and dual carriageways daily you have a much higher chance of getting caught.. I avoid them where possible.. Everyone I know
who has 4 or more points on their license got them from dual carriageways or motorways, more specifically dual carriageways.

I read someone say earlier that you could get snagged before you even see the speed limit sign, may not be the drivers fault at all, how do you know what way the garda operating this instrument has been aiming it? Could have been pointing at you whilst still in the 100 zone about to go into the 60 zone. Before you even entered it you were caught! How do you prove that? I felt I was victim of this last year but I had no way of proven it so was forced to pay up. I was MAD as a hatter about it..
My remedy was to never travel that strecth of road again and I have not..

I have a satnav with speed camera references so I feel a little more confidant these days.

cyclopath2001

mondeo wrote: »

.....Could have been pointing at you whilst still in the 100 zone about to go into the 60 zone. Before you even entered it you were caught! How do you prove that? I felt I was victim of this last year but I had no way of proven it so was forced to pay up. ....I have a satnav with speed camera references so I feel a little more confidant these days.

I think I have a solution to your dilemma. Your SatNav is recording your speed and location at regular intervals. Next time, just produce it in evidence.

Problem solved.

mondeo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I think I have a solution to your dilemma. Your SatNav is recording your speed and location at regular intervals. Next time, just produce it in evidence.

Problem solved.

Ye but it records the maximum speed over all.... So if I did 120 on the m50 earlier that day and past this 60 zone alot later it would not over write the maximum speed of 120 that I had travelled earlier... I have a garmin.

cyclopath2001

mondeo wrote: »

Ye but it records the maximum speed over all.... So if I did 120 on the m50 earlier that day and past this 60 zone alot later it would not over write the maximum speed of 120 that I had travelled earlier... I have a garmin.

On mine, there's also a 'track' file. It's stored internally but can be extracted via computer. It's used to provide an animated playback of your trip.

Damien360

Good luck getting your Sat Nav as evidence in court.

Judge: When was your Sat Nav calibrated ?

Driver : Garmin did it in the factory. Looks accurate.

Judge : Garda, when was your speed detector calibrated.

Garda : Done profesionally on .....

Judge to driver : 4 points for you then. Bye.

mondeo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

On mine, there's also a 'track' file. It's stored internally but can be extracted via computer. It's used to provide an animated playback of your trip.

What unit do you have?

Cool Mo D

GPS devices don't need to be calibrated to give an accurate speed. Even if they have your position off by a few meters, it will be consistently off. It doesn't affect the speed data, as that only depends on the change in distances recorded.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

On mine, there's also a 'track' file. It's stored internally but can be extracted via computer. It's used to provide an animated playback of your trip.

Not on mine, or on any other I've used.

Also, you have a disturbing trust in the accuracy of positioning on GPS systems. Many are not accurate enough to guarantee your position within a ±15 metre area dependent on conditions.

On a side note, that is the first time I've ever used the ± button on my keyboard and I've had this laptop for a year...

cyclopath2001

mondeo wrote: »

What unit do you have?

CoPilot. 6 for PPC.

The high-end Garmin StreetPilot seems to have tracking as standard, but I don't thinks it's available on the budget hardware.

But if you're using a smartphone to host the software, there's plenty of programs which can help you record your track for later analysis.

craichoe

MYOB wrote: »

Not on mine, or on any other I've used.

Also, you have a disturbing trust in the accuracy of positioning on GPS systems. Many are not accurate enough to guarantee your position within a ±15 metre area dependent on conditions.

On a side note, that is the first time I've ever used the ± button on my keyboard and I've had this laptop for a year...

Its more accurate that your speedo, unless my sat nav is a total skitzo, in one car, Mercede E Class its dead on with the speedo, in a Golf its 10 percent off, consistently, any explanation ?

L1011

craichoe wrote: »

Its more accurate that your speedo, unless my sat nav is a total skitzo, in one car, Mercede E Class its dead on with the speedo, in a Golf its 10 percent off, consistently, any explanation ?

Ah, they're quite good on speed. Just not in any way decent at being able to guarantee where you are...

If its reading 6 meters off in one location due to satellite locations, 50 metres down the road it might read 5.99 meters off - meaning speed calculations will be almost 100% accurate. But the locations still borked.

derry

MYOB wrote: »

Ah, they're quite good on speed. Just not in any way decent at being able to guarantee where you are...

If its reading 6 meters off in one location due to satellite locations, 50 metres down the road it might read 5.99 meters off - meaning speed calculations will be almost 100% accurate. But the locations still borked.

Most car speedo are set to overead buy a few % .BMW claims that they will be 3kph out so 53KPH will mean 50KPH. Some cars speedo are way out for all sorts of reasons .Sat nav take reading from several satilite fixxes .They are often very acurate for speed as they measure the reading every second . They know you traveled so many meters in one second and therefore return very good figures .However sometimes the amount of satilites is less maybe less than three satilites are in view and then figures can be wildly out.The high sides on the motorway can obscure some satilite fixes

In the future the GPS for Europe will have ground fixed reference points and uplink correction signals and the accuracy will be plus minus a meter or less similar to what the USA has presently in most of the USA

It is worth recording all your GPS journeys .If you get a iffy speeding ticket it is worth then fighting it in court . If you can prove that having a speed trap on a blind corner can accidently pick up fast moving traffic in the motorway behind you might get off. Its not so easy to to prove on blind corners that radar is 100% accurate as the cops would like to believe in a court of law .
Radar reading on straight roads where there is very little other traffic is harder to fight . Everything between the more solid case and the blind corner is more possible to fight in court

Fixed cameras are very much harder to fight as the whole thing is well calibrated and very accurate

Some countries have even scraped or dramaticaly reduced mobile Radar as it clogged up legal systems with too many cases getting thrown out on tecknicalities

You should look the Dutch speeding forums some real good pointers are there .

It is now established in Irish law that speeding on a motorway is in itself not a act of dangerous driving . So it has possibly opened a huge can of worms that maybe one should not lose points for minor speeding on the motorway late at night on a empty motorway in good modern car made to do speeds of 140KPH plus .



Its not true that Germany has no speed limit on the Autobahns.What exists is the important issue the Germans say that no real 100% fool proff tecknical methods of speed measuring that will stand up in german courts and therefore they cant give the police the right to issue tickets for speeding .
The recommended speed on all autobahns is 130KPH. If you exceed this recomended speed you do so at SEVERE risk to yourself. The risk comes from when you have the accident .From the accident if they can establish that you were exceeding 130KPH (which often they can as there is cameras everywhere) the German car insurance policies often will not pay up. So it better to say there is a unsigned automatic speed limit of 130KPH in all of the Germanies Autobahns that isn't enforceable on 50% of the autobahn network where there is no signs indicating speeds .If you exceed the speed limit you wont get a ticket for speeding and if you don't crash you will get off scott free .If you crash and your Insurance doesn't pay up you will pay for the crash from your own personal finances probably for the rest of your life. Thats a severe risk for non german residents to be jailed for long periods until they pay all the costs of the crash if the crash came from excessive speeding . The Irish insurance companies are not beyond taking the cheaper German law solution that they don't pay out if you crash at high speeds because Insurance looks to get out of every loop hole they can find. Its typical German logic when your in the dock "you should know these things"


Derry

Seth Brundle

derry wrote: »

Most car speedo are set to overead buy a few % .BMW claims that they will be 3kph out so 53KPH will mean 50KPH.

I have never heard that BMW admitted this. It actually surprises me as they cannot be 100% sure given tyre differences, etc.

I.S.T.

derry wrote: »

It is now established in Irish law that speeding on a motorway is in itself not a act of dangerous driving . So it has possibly opened a huge can of worms that maybe one should not lose points for minor speeding on the motorway late at night on a empty motorway in good modern car made to do speeds of 140KPH plus .

Do you have a reference for this?