Camera on the Quinn!

Black_Knight

Anyone else see this today? Theres a camera about half way across the quinncentenial bridge.
If your traveling to westside its on the left, pointing towards westside. Is on its own big pole, with one of the street lights is holding it upright. Theres a black box on the ground underneath it too.

Anyone know what it is?

JohnCleary

This was mentioned over on the Motors forum, there's more than one (spread out over the area) - Fixed speed camera maybe?

Kick the box and see what happens?

Either way, we need pics (no pun intended)

ronnie3585

Passed it today and was wondering the same. Don't think it looks big enough to be a speed camera. Looks more like the CCTV cams on Shop Street.

Maybe it's there to catch the chronic masturbator?

Malice

Well if it is a speed camera it'll do very well for itself as I rarely see any cars obeying the speed limit.

snubbleste

I've noticed motorists has slowed down since it appeared, closer to the 50kph level

I'd have thought it's there to record the volume of traffic but let's hope they are speed cameras..

Black_Knight

Im thinking its recording the volume of traffic thing, though I would of thought those wire things they put across the road would be a better judge.

No camera on me to take pics, and I was driving so I couldnt give it a kick. Soon, soon!

malice_

malice_ wrote: »

Well if it is a speed camera it'll do very well for itself as I rarely see any cars obeying the speed limit.

Well you cannot blame people, 50km/h is crazy slow on that road.

KevR

A fixed speed camera with no warning signs?! Would be very unusual but I wouldn't be surprised at the same time.

I haven't even noticed it to be honest, will look out for it this evening on the way home. I'm usually slightly over the limit on the bridge; if it was a speed camera I have probably passed it enough times in the last couple of days alone to be disqualified!!! :eek:

By the sounds of it, it seems like it could be a CCTV camera to monitor traffic/congestion. Although, there is no central traffic light control room in Galway so it wouldn't really serve a purpose, unless it's so the Gardai can dispatch someone to direct traffic if it gets really bad at any given time when the Ocean Race starts.

Can't wait to have a look on the way home, should be able to figure out what it is.

PopeBuckfastXVI

snubbleste wrote: »

I'd have thought it's there to record the volume of traffic but let's hope they are speed cameras..

GTFO... put some focking speed cameras on backroads where people get killed, not on a big four lane straight road, not that I can normally cross that bridge at higher than about 10kph anyway, but where I can and it's perfectly safe then f*ck it.

A speed camera there would be just revenue generation, nothing to do with saving lives.

doolox

You risk getting hit from behind driving at 50 kph in Galway or Waterford where they have these crazy speed limits on dual carriageways.
Just move along with the traffic is the best bet.
At night or in very quiet times you don't need to go fast but it is a pain keeping down to 50.......but the cops have so few targets ( you ) that you need to.

soundbyte

They're traffic counters. There's one near the exit barrier of the carpark in the Cathedral too.

Black_Knight

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

GTFO... put some focking speed cameras on backroads where people get killed, not on a big four lane straight road, not that I can normally cross that bridge at higher than about 10kph anyway, but where I can and it's perfectly safe then f*ck it.

A speed camera there would be just revenue generation, nothing to do with saving lives.

The several dead people over the past couple of years on that road wouldnt agree.... oh yes, I just went all serious on your ass!

I dont really see the point "gunning" it over the quinn, its only a few hundred meters where your probably going to get caught at the lights/stuck in traffic on the other side anyways. Im not saying I stick to 50Km/hr, thats a joke, im more of a 60Km/hr on the quinn kinda guy. REBEL REBEL EH!

Black_Knight

doolox wrote: »

At night or in very quiet times you don't need to go fast but it is a pain keeping down to 50.......but the cops have so few targets ( you ) that you need to.

I remember it well, 11.30pm on the 17th of March, 06! Ba$tards!

Malice

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

GTFO... put some focking speed cameras on backroads where people get killed, not on a big four lane straight road, not that I can normally cross that bridge at higher than about 10kph anyway, but where I can and it's perfectly safe then f*ck it.

A speed camera there would be just revenue generation, nothing to do with saving lives.

I totally agree with this. The road has an artificially low speed limit to begin with because it has no barrier running down the middle like other dual carriageways. Capitalising on that with revenue-generating cameras would be a very cynical move.

cornbb

50kph is wicked low alright. I'd be more in favour of a 70-80kph limit and strict enforcement. I'd take issue with the suggestion that that road is relatively safe though. I've seen people pull some crazy sh*t there, like people crossing the centre white line to overtake :eek:

quietobserver

malice_ wrote: »

I totally agree with this. The road has an artificially low speed limit to begin with because it has no barrier running down the middle like other dual carriageways. Capitalising on that with revenue-generating cameras would be a very cynical move.

this is its not meant as a "dual carriage way" its a two lane bridge, and i think its because its within the city limits that it has a 50kph speed limit. 50 is too slow for it as it 50 on the road by motorpark up to the tuam road roundabout, that was to be reviewed after the change over from miles to kph speed limits but i guess its down the pile of things for doing.

kippy

KevR wrote: »

A fixed speed camera with no warning signs?! Would be very unusual but I wouldn't be surprised at the same time.

I haven't even noticed it to be honest, will look out for it this evening on the way home. I'm usually slightly over the limit on the bridge; if it was a speed camera I have probably passed it enough times in the last couple of days alone to be disqualified!!! :eek:

By the sounds of it, it seems like it could be a CCTV camera to monitor traffic/congestion. Although, there is no central traffic light control room in Galway so it wouldn't really serve a purpose, unless it's so the Gardai can dispatch someone to direct traffic if it gets really bad at any given time when the Ocean Race starts.

Can't wait to have a look on the way home, should be able to figure out what it is.

I assume the camera is for monitoring traffic.

I do recall a report in the advertiser or other such publication in the past few months speaking of a new "central traffic control center" with associated hardware and systems for Galway city. Perhaps these are the forerunners of it and will be part of the system in the long run?
I cant remember where I read that article, I was surprised at the time as I had assumed the City had some form of traffic management system in place. Evidently not.
Kippy

Malice

quietobserver wrote: »

this is its not meant as a "dual carriage way" its a two lane bridge, and i think its because its within the city limits that it has a 50kph speed limit. 50 is too slow for it as it 50 on the road by motorpark up to the tuam road roundabout, that was to be reviewed after the change over from miles to kph speed limits but i guess its down the pile of things for doing.

Sorry, that's correct, a dual carriageway has a median down the middle to separate it, the Quincentennial bridge doesn't so I shouldn't have called it a dual carriageway. The thing is though, if it's meant as a 2 lane bridge then why are there 4 lanes on it? What genius neglected to factor in the median when it was being built?

Black_Knight

Back when I got points for speeding over it a few years back, the letter said "residential area" or something to that affect. I had to chuckle.

I cant see them changing the speed limit on it, and to be honest I couldnt care less, sometimes its nice to take her handy and check out the ladies on their way to college :cool:

Black_Knight

malice_ wrote: »

The thing is though, if it's meant as a 2 lane bridge then why are there 4 lanes on it? What genius neglected to factor in the median when it was being built?

I think he means 2 lanes each way.... 2+2=4

The genius thought if he put in a median in the middle, a load of idiots would think its a dual carriageway! :pac:

[SIZE=-2]Thats not directed at you, more directed at everyone who thinks it a dual carriageway[/SIZE]

KevR

It has been argued in the past that the bridge and other 4 lane single carriageways in Galway are dangerous because there is no barrier.

I don't buy into that arguement at all.

The same people who argue that it's unsafe will happily drive on a 2 lane single carriageway at 100kmh outside of The City and offer no arguement that the lack of a barrier makes this very unsafe.

Surely a 2 lane single is less safe than a 4 lane in that you always have to cross onto the other side of the road to overtake. On a 4 lane single carriageway you can safely overtake without crossing over because there are 2 lanes in each direction!

Obviously a barrier would make it safer as it would eliminate the possibility of head on collisions completely but 4 lane single carriageways are still very safe. I wouldn't quite go for a 100kmh speed limit on the Galway's 4 laners, 80kmh is probably about right in my opinion.

Motorway > Dual Carriageway > 4 Lane Single Carriageway > 2 Lane Single Carriageway > Country Lanes

Zzippy

KevR wrote: »

It has been argued in the past that the bridge and other 4 lane single carriageways in Galway are dangerous because there is no barrier.

I don't buy into that arguement at all.

I think the family of the woman who was killed a couple of years ago by a driver who crossed over and hit her would disagree with you there... a central median would have prevented that incident.

ScumLord

There should be barriers to seperate the people from the road. This should be standard policy around the country.

KevR

Zzippy wrote: »

I think the family of the woman who was killed a couple of years ago by a driver who crossed over and hit her would disagree with you there... a central median would have prevented that incident.

Yes a central barrier would have prevented that accident, I agree fully. I'd love if every road had a central barrier and there was no such thing as head on collisions. Although, we can all argee that this would be very difficult and expensive to achieve. I do think it was a huge mistake not to put in a central barrier and a barrier on the edge of the footpath on the bridge and other busy 4 laners in Galway. Could probably put in a barrier on the footpath now without too much trouble, it would stop cars ever mounting the footpath and hitting pedestrians. But there is no real room for a central barrier; unless the road is widened which I don't think is likely to happen.

My point still stands - 4 lane single carriageways are safer than 2 lane single carriageways. Why do people argue that 4 laners are dangerous because there is no barrier but never argue that 2 laners are dangerous because they have no barrier?

Some people are firmly against having a reasonable speed limit on the bridge and similar roads, they are saying it would be dangerous for various reasons (e.g - no barrier). Yet they're not nearly as vocal when it comes to other roads which have ridiculously high speed limits, no barrier, dangerous bends, no lighting and are death traps. I find this weird and annoying.

redsteveireland

It's mad how this started out as a question about the camera on the Quinn and turned into an argument about traffic/speed cameras bad driving etc... Did anyone figure out what the damn thing is?

KevR

redsteveireland wrote: »

It's mad how this started out as a question about the camera on the Quinn and turned into an argument about traffic/speed cameras bad driving etc... Did anyone figure out what the damn thing is?

People in motors also saying it's likely to be a traffic counting/monitoring camera and not a speed camera.

I should be able to tell what it is or isn't when I pass on the way home this evening. Will post later.

ScumLord

KevR wrote: »

Yes a central barrier would have prevented that accident, I agree fully. I'd love if every road had a central barrier and there was no such thing as head on collisions. Although, we can all argee that this would be very difficult and expensive to achieve.

Plus one tractor or old biddy would bring the country to a standstill.

GerardKeating

Zzippy wrote: »

I think the family of the woman who was killed a couple of years ago by a driver who crossed over and hit her would disagree with you there... a central median would have prevented that incident.

But kind of Swings and Roundabouts (if you pardon the pun), once or twice i have seen the Quinn bridge bumber to bumber in one direction and an ambulance crossing to the other side to get somewhere quicker,

Zzippy

KevR wrote: »

Yes a central barrier would have prevented that accident, I agree fully. I'd love if every road had a central barrier and there was no such thing as head on collisions. Although, we can all argee that this would be very difficult and expensive to achieve. I do think it was a huge mistake not to put in a central barrier and a barrier on the edge of the footpath on the bridge and other busy 4 laners in Galway. Could probably put in a barrier on the footpath now without too much trouble, it would stop cars ever mounting the footpath and hitting pedestrians. But there is no real room for a central barrier; unless the road is widened which I don't think is likely to happen.

My point still stands - 4 lane single carriageways are safer than 2 lane single carriageways. Why do people argue that 4 laners are dangerous because there is no barrier but never argue that 2 laners are dangerous because they have no barrier?

Some people are firmly against having a reasonable speed limit on the bridge and similar roads, they are saying it would be dangerous for various reasons (e.g - no barrier). Yet they're not nearly as vocal when it comes to other roads which have ridiculously high speed limits, no barrier, dangerous bends, no lighting and are death traps. I find this weird and annoying.

I have no argument that 2 lane carriageways are more dangerous, and yes, some have ridiculous speed limits. But I was responding to your post saying that the bridge was not actually dangerous in spite of the lack of a median. I think even a soft median, like the upright bollards on the end of the short stretch between the magic roundabout and the Menlo Park roundabout (across from the Marriott hotel) would be an option, while they wouldn't stop a vehicle from crossing over at speed, or a motorist deliberately crossing over, they would provide a very visual "encouragement" to staying in your lane. Wouldn't take up any space so could still keep the 4 lanes.

GerardKeating wrote: »

But kind of Swings and Roundabouts (if you pardon the pun), once or twice i have seen the Quinn bridge bumber to bumber in one direction and an ambulance crossing to the other side to get somewhere quicker,

I don't think ambulance access to the opposite carriageway is taken into account when designing roads, its likely to cost far fewer lives having an ambulance held up in traffic than cars crossing over into oncoming traffic. And your pun was awful!

KevR

Zzippy wrote: »

I have no argument that 2 lane carriageways are more dangerous, and yes, some have ridiculous speed limits. But I was responding to your post saying that the bridge was not actually dangerous in spite of the lack of a median. I think even a soft median, like the upright bollards on the end of the short stretch between the magic roundabout and the Menlo Park roundabout (across from the Marriott hotel) would be an option, while they wouldn't stop a vehicle from crossing over at speed, or a motorist deliberately crossing over, they would provide a very visual "encouragement" to staying in your lane. Wouldn't take up any space so could still keep the 4 lanes.

I don't really know would those bollards be worth the investment on the bridge. As you said, those bollards between the Galway Shopping Centre RAB and the Menlo Park RAB wouldn't stop a car crossing to the other side if it hit them. They were only installed to stop people making illegal right turns into Dunnes Stores. They would stop people going out over the white line and onto the other side to overtake but I don't think that's a regular occurence; I've never witnessed it myself and don't know anyone who has.

Just to clear up my other point a bit - I wasn't saying the bridge is the ultimate accident proof road in terms of road safety, what I was trying to say is that I think as specifications go it is quite good and the number of serious accidents is very low considering the millions of journeys made on it every year.
What I was getting at is that the bridge is of a good enough standard to have an 80kmh speed limit. Some people in the past have used the no median arguement against a higher speed limit, hence why I brought up 2 lane single carriagways often having higher limits despite being of a lesser spec and more dangerous. I know that woman was killed on the bridge and a median would have prevented that happening but was that not a case of the man in the other car committing suicide rather than speed as such?

I wouldn't be against a median at all but I don't think one is absolutely necessary if the speed limit was raised. It would only be reflecting normal driving practice after all.

PopeBuckfastXVI

KevR for Mayor!