Speed camera mega-thread ***Read first post before posting***

Iwannahurl

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

I would usually be in the "need to slow down" category (which can now be done safely in advance).. but the biggest risk is the ppl who will slam on the brakes, helps with that too.

The biggest risk? Speed. Check out the evidence, not some (Irish) motorists' opinions.

http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/T%D8I%20rapporter/2004/740-2004/740-2004.pdf

Luckily for civilisation and sanity, the newly announced privatised speed detection operation is to supplement rather than replace Garda enforcement.

Even better, the Garda Siochana is now equipped with new technology which -- I hope -- will foil the activities of those people in the "need to slow down" category who believe that finding new and better ways to evade speed traps is one of the highest forms of human endeavour.

I would be grateful, and happy, if someone could confirm whether unmarked Garda vehicles featuring ANPR and Puma time-over-distance technology will indeed be deployed to detect, and ultimately deter, the slippery speeding muppets on the loose everywhere in this benighted republic.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0427/1224269159926.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfkfidmhaumh/rss2/

Seth Brundle

jimmynokia wrote: »

this if if you caught via handheld not via gatso van etc

That is not answering my question. There is no law that says that you are "allowed" to exceed the posted speed limit.

What happens here is that a garda is using discretion and doesn't look for people going 0.5Km over the limit. However, this is at the discretion of the garda in question. However, they can and will get you for doing this should they really wish to!

jaffa20

Dunno if it has already been posted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E8F_mL1nug

forzacalcio

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

Only registered it this afternoon...
When was leaving work it popped up on my screen that somebody else had registered a device at 4.30pm (20 mins before I was on road). When I went back along the road I couldn't see anything so registered with trapster that I disagreed with the notification.

Seems the notifications automatically expire after 2 hours. Will been using it in future

Not sure thats the point, you should still agree with it as they are areas that could have speed cams, thats the point I think, if in doubt just dont agree or disagree.

stimpson

kbannon wrote: »

Are you sure?
Having keyed the locations of fixed cameras into a sat nav device would surely fall into the legislation?

Putting the locations of these areas unto a satnav isn't detecting if a camera is there or not. It's just a reminder that you are in a zone. A Tom Tom rep on the GPS forum told me that their GO and VIA devices will be coming with the locations pre loaded.

Flesh Gorden

Saf€ty Cam€ra

.Longshanks.

forzacalcio wrote: »

Not sure thats the point, you should still agree with it as they are areas that could have speed cams, thats the point I think, if in doubt just dont agree or disagree.

I dunno about that. The notifications list the time it was made and have an expiry time. Surely if i the notification remains active all the time, you will end up with multiple alerts for the same section of road when there wont be white vans attempting to raise revenue slowing people down.
If that happened, you would eventually ignore the notification and it would then become no effective the the map already on the gardai website??

Anybody else agree/disagree?

Atomic Pineapple

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The biggest risk? Speed. Check out the evidence, not some (Irish) motorists' opinions.

http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasjoner/T%D8I%20rapporter/2004/740-2004/740-2004.pdf

That doesn't say speed is the biggest risk just that there is a link between speed and accidents, I dont think anyone doubts that and even that research admits that how to properly police speed is debatable.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Luckily for civilisation and sanity, the newly announced privatised speed detection operation is to supplement rather than replace Garda enforcement.

Even better, the Garda Siochana is now equipped with new technology which -- I hope -- will foil the activities of those people in the "need to slow down" category who believe that finding new and better ways to evade speed traps is one of the highest forms of human endeavour.

The speed limits in this country are set up on a rigid basis based on road type, alternative routes and the limit is placed on that road for the entire road without taking into consideration bad bends or straight pieces of road, accident black spots ect...

This means that a set limit is set for entire sections of roads despite it being highly likely that the speed suitable for that road is going to vary per km, this means that driver education on how to know what a suitable speed is for a section of road would be much more effective than policing a speed limit that is unlikely to suit a road in Ireland.

We have dual carriageways with limits of 80km/h or even as low as 60 km/h when dual carriageways by their very nature should be safe for 100km/h if drivers were educated on how to drive them properly.

But hey demonising speed is fashionable and keeps people who cant think for themselves happy so away you go. I wont be listening to you.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I would be grateful, and happy, if someone could confirm whether unmarked Garda vehicles featuring ANPR and Puma time-over-distance technology will indeed be deployed to detect, and ultimately deter, the slippery speeding muppets on the loose everywhere in this benighted republic?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0427/1224269159926.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfkfidmhaumh/rss2/

No they detect tax and no insurance, or at least will detect no insurance at some stage, something actually useful rather than targeting "speeders"

Hogzy

Flesh Gorden wrote: »

Saf€ty Cam€ra

I see what you did there :pac:

Seth Brundle

stimpson wrote: »

Putting the locations of these areas unto a satnav isn't detecting if a camera is there or not. It's just a reminder that you are in a zone. A Tom Tom rep on the GPS forum told me that their GO and VIA devices will be coming with the locations pre loaded.

If you re-read my post, you will see that I referenced fixed cameras as the post I quoted could be mis-interpreted to include these

Absurdum

jaffa20 wrote: »

Dunno if it has already been posted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

weren't them lads telling us we turned the corner too?

johndoc

The has been some talk on here about the fact that the s€ameras are the means by which the NRA and powers that be, are going to reduce road deaths by forcing people to reduce their speed.
There have been plenty of self righteous posts about how we don't need to worry about the s€ameras if we just obey speed limits (a large amount of which are well reported to be nonsense)

In addressing the misnomer that speed reduction causes the amount of accidents the likes of the NRA tries to make us believe, and is sucked up by the media, I hereby call bulls**t on the NRA/RSA, their speed statisics, the lastest RSA Road Collision report, and the fantastical claims in ads currently playing to inform us all of the new speed cameras

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/RCF20083-2-2010.pdf

Bear with me on this.

The RSA report states that in 2008, of 28,464 collisions recorded, 279 were fatal, 835 serious injuries, 9,758 injuries, 21,728 property only (page v)
35% of fatal collisions were single vehicle only (98 collisions) (page xi)
Assume then if I may, that 65% (181) were two vehicle fatal collisions.

Table 36 deals with contributory action by the driver in these two vehicle collisions (page 35)
48 fatal collisions have been attributed by the RSA report to driver action, 7 due to 'exceeded safe speed'
So, out of 181 two vehicle fatal collisions, 7 were attributable to speed - just under 4%

This contradicts the summary on page 9 which states 15% of fatal two car collisions were attributable to speed. Why? Because the 15% is only of fatal collisions where the contributory action is down to the driver. It ignores or doesn't count any incidents where the driver wasn't at fault at all.
Its a situation where if a tunnel collapsed and killed someone driving through it, then the NRA would have them in his speeding statistics.

The report is fairly bad, the data isn’t presented to allow an analysis to be done and there are conclusions jumped to all over the thing with no backup at all.
So, I suggest that 15% might be high. But differences in data collection, driver behaviour, poor reporting/analysis etc will effect findings.

By comparison with other countries, I offer the following as evidence;

A 2008 report by the US Dept of Transportation to the US Congress details 'Critical Pre-Crash Event of Vehicles with Critical Reasons'
Percentage categorised as 'travelling too fast' - 5% (page 23)
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF
1Mb

A 2008 annual report by the UK Dept of Transport which states;
Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3% of cars involved in accidents, while travelling too fast for conditions was attributed to 6%
For fatal accidents these figures are 7% and 10% respectively.' (page 44)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rcgb2007.pdf
4Mb

Here is where I call BS

On the basis that the RSA's own report can only back up a figure of 4%
On the basis of the above US report of a figure of 5%
On the basis of the above UK report of a figure of 6% (or 10%, or 3%, take your pick) (If you go for the 10% figure, then the NRA’s is only overstated by a half.)

But on the basis of these - where the hell does the RSA get the following bulls**t??????;
‘In single vehicle fatal collisions, exceeding safe speed limit was cited as the main contributory action in 54% of collisions’ (page 9)


RSA/NRA, I await your substantiated response
.

freddyuk

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

Since the camera is facing at you i really dont think there will be any flash involved. Otherwise you would be blinded.
I guess they will have a form of night vision camera for afterdark

Sorry to disappoint you but there is a flash and it takes a very good photograph. Although I could not see my ugly mug in a photo I queried the fact it was not clear and I received a super enhanced version which clearly shows me at the wheel. So do not be fooled, they got you both ways. If you need proof i will send it to you.It was the UK plod but you are buying all our old cameras so it will apply! We are throwing them out.

flutered

johndoc wrote: »

The has been some talk on here about the fact that the s€ameras are the means by which the NRA and powers that be, are going to reduce road deaths by forcing people to reduce their speed.
There have been plenty of self righteous posts about how we don't need to worry about the s€ameras if we just obey speed limits (a large amount of which are well reported to be nonsense)

In addressing the misnomer that speed reduction causes the amount of accidents the likes of the NRA tries to make us believe, and is sucked up by the media, I hereby call bulls**t on the NRA, their speed statisics, their latest Road Collision report, and the fantastical claims in ads currently playing to inform us all of the new speed cameras

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/RCF20083-2-2010.pdf

Bear with me, this may get boring.

The NRA report states that in 2008, of 28,464 collisions recorded, 279 were fatal, 835 serious injuries, 9,758 injuries, 21,728 property only (page v)
35% of fatal collisions were single vehicle only (98 collisions) (page xi)
Assume then if I may, that 65% (181) were two vehicle fatal collisions.

Table 36 deals with contributory action by the driver in these two vehicle collisions (page 35)
48 fatal collisions have been attributed by the NRA report to driver action, 7 due to 'exceeded safe speed'
So, out of 181 two vehicle fatal collisions, 7 were attributable to speed - just under 4%

This contradicts the summary on page 9 which states 15% of fatal two car collisions were attributable to speed. Why? Because the 15% is only of fatal collisions where the contributory action is down to the driver. It ignores or doesn't count any incidents where the driver wasn't at fault at all.
Its a situation where if a tunnel collapsed and killed someone driving through it, then the NRA would have them in his speeding statistics.

The report is fairly bad, the data isn’t presented to allow an analysis to be done and there are conclusions jumped to all over the thing with no backup at all.
So, I suggest that 15% might be high. But differences in data collection, driver behaviour, poor reporting/analysis etc will effect findings.

By comparison with other countries, I offer the following as evidence;

A 2008 report by the US Dept of Transportation to the US Congress details 'Critical Pre-Crash Event of Vehicles with Critical Reasons'
Percentage categorised as 'travelling too fast' - 5% (page 23)
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF
1Mb

A 2008 annual report by the UK Dept of Transport which states;
Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3% of cars involved in accidents, while travelling too fast for conditions was attributed to 6%
For fatal accidents these figures are 7% and 10% respectively.' (page 44)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rcgb2007.pdf
4Mb

Here is where I call BS

On the basis that the NRA's own report can only back up a figure of 4%
On the basis of the above US report of a figure of 5%
On the basis of the above UK report of a figure of 6% (or 10%, or 3%, take your pick) (If you go for the 10% figure, then the NRA’s is only overstated by a half.)

But on the basis of these - where the hell does the NRA get the following??????;
‘In single vehicle fatal collisions, exceeding safe speed limit was cited as the main contributory action in 54% of collisions’ (page 9)

NRA, I await your substantiated response

how dare you question the goverments latest fundraising venture, do you not understand both the goverment and the times we live in.

rat catcher

Hi seen a speed van in duleek today it had no signs to warn you that it was a speed check? Thought it was to be marked as a speed trap?

ironclaw

freddyuk wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint you but there is a flash and it takes a very good photograph. Although I could not see my ugly mug in a photo I queried the fact it was not clear and I received a super enhanced version which clearly shows me at the wheel. So do not be fooled, they got you both ways. If you need proof i will send it to you.It was the UK plod but you are buying all our old cameras so it will apply! We are throwing them out.

Could you post up a suitably edited version of that shot? Does it show a speed etc?

Flesh Gorden

The towns ireland site have different locations for saf€ty cam€ra loacations compared to the map on garda.ie

I'd say they have a page for all 26 counties, I only tried my own

http://www.towns-ireland.com/?s=county+cork+speed


first ones that stands out

2.9km - Ballyduhig, Kinsale Road > Fivemile Bridge Rural R600

1.1km - Lota N8 Dunkettle > Urban N8

1.9km - N8 Lower Glanmire Road > Tivoli Urban N8

2.5km -N27 Kinsale Road > N27 Airport Roundabout Rural N27

8.2km - Bandon Road Roundabout > Mahon Point Urban N28 -N25

none of these are on the garda.ie saf€ty cam€ra map

yop

So "going forward" we wont be "going forward" as fast as we were "going forward", "going forward"

johndoc

There are 3 spots on the N81 on the way in to Templeogue you can count on a van or laser being set up at least a couple of times a week between the 3.
None mentioned on the garda map

fullstop

MaceFace wrote: »

:mad:

Drove from Drimnagh Road to RDS today and not once could I see a speed limit sign. Not one!
I drove down Drimnagh Road, Crumlin Rd, St Circular, around the Black Horse up towards National Concert Hall and around Adelaide Rd, up the canal from Leeson St bridge, turned at Baggot Stret Bridge, up Pembroke Road to Jurys.

Not one sign to be seen.

I spend most the time looking between my speedometer and the side of the road for a sign. Good thing no one ran out in front of me.

Do you know what the speed limit in an urban area is form the ROTR?

.Longshanks.

freddyuk wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint you but there is a flash and it takes a very good photograph. Although I could not see my ugly mug in a photo I queried the fact it was not clear and I received a super enhanced version which clearly shows me at the wheel. So do not be fooled, they got you both ways. If you need proof i will send it to you.It was the UK plod but you are buying all our old cameras so it will apply! We are throwing them out.

I've only ever seen the M1 speed camera flash at night. And it was very bright - in my rear view mirror.

[maybe OTT reaction]God help anybody on a dark narrow road with no street lights and oncoming traffic.....suddenly some tool sets off a very bight flash in your direction.
If it was a young one on the side of the road with a flash light, you'd pull in and tell them off[/OTT reaction]

sesna

I downloaded Trapster and used it today. Went through 6 supposed locations (4 green, two red) and there was nothing there. Would these have been permanent markers where speed traps are likely to be found, or would they have just been two hours old, and the speed check was gone?

freddyuk

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

I've only ever seen the M1 speed camera flash at night. And it was very bright - in my rear view mirror.

[maybe OTT reaction]God help anybody on a dark narrow road with no street lights and oncoming traffic.....suddenly some tool sets off a very bight flash in your direction.
If it was a young one on the side of the road with a flash light, you'd pull in and tell them off[/OTT reaction]

It is the Trivolo? red lense jobby. It has a flash that does not blind you. Clever sods.
PM me and i will send the photo. You can post it for me if you want to.

galwaytt

johndoc wrote: »

.........
The RSA report states that in 2008, ......
RSA/NRA, I await your substantiated response
.

johndoc - I'm with you. I spent Monday night writing the attached, and sending it to the Broadcast Authority of Ireland, to at least try and yank the misleading ad.

Whilst you 'await' the RSA - that's exactly what you'll do - wait. By bringing in a 3rd party, as it were, some response might be in order. Time for the Ombudsman next.

So, you need to send your argument to the RSA as well - they ain't going to come to boards.ie to read it

Same goes from everyone else: I don't think any one letter, email, phone call or forum rant will achieve anything. But the drip-drip approach, that's a different matter. And it's also the very language, and mechanism, they use themselves......

johndoc

sesna wrote: »

I downloaded Trapster and used it today. Went through 6 supposed locations (4 green, two red) and there was nothing there. Would these have been permanent markers where speed traps are likely to be found, or would they have just been two hours old, and the speed check was gone?

You went through 'known enforcement points', red means a higher confidence level, then amber, then green.
Tap on the icon to find out the last reported date.
Now, a 'live police' or 'mobile speed camera' alert..... those only stay on there for an hour or two
You can set Trapster to ignore the known enforcement points, or individual ones you travel past all the time.
'live police' or 'mobile speed camera' alert.... I'd leave them on

galwaytt

time for this, yesh ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo

stimpson

kbannon wrote: »

If you re-read my post, you will see that I referenced fixed cameras as the post I quoted could be mis-interpreted to include these

Even for a fixed camera a satnav is not detecting if it's there or not. Tom Tom seem to think it's ok. I'm sure they have checked with their lawyers.

johndoc

I don't get why there is any uncertainty over whats legal and whats not

3. In these Regulations, "speed meter detector" means any device which is capable of being used to indicate the existence of, or to frustrate the operation of, electronic or other apparatus being used to give indications from which the speed at which a person was driving can be inferred.

4. A person shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle to which is fitted, or in or on which is carried, a speed meter detector whether or not such device is actually in use.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/si/0050.html

In summary:
any device capable of indicating the existence of apparatus being used to give indications of the speed at which a person was driving

Radar detectors, GPS with points loaded, smartphone with trapster. All capable of indicating the existance of speed detection apparatus. All illegal
Crystal.
No? :rolleyes:

(Trapster for me BTW)

sesna

Trapster seems to have potential.

It's only good if there are a huge amount of users on it though constantly updating data, especially in the case of rural areas where there are lower volumes of traffic.

Also, its usefulness will only be seen truly several months from now, when all the initial media hype, etc about the new cameras has died down and when users may not be using it as often.

TJJP

johndoc wrote: »

I don't get why there is any uncertainty over whats legal and whats not


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/si/0050.html

In summary:
any device capable of indicating the existence of apparatus being used to give indications of the speed at which a person was driving

Radar detectors, GPS with points loaded, smartphone with trapster. All capable of indicating the existance of speed detection apparatus. All illegal
Crystal.
No? :rolleyes:

(Trapster for me BTW)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055222200