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

johndoc

sesna wrote: »

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.

Agreed

I've just posted a response in another thread to a guy who loaded up every location in his area with info from the Garda website.

As sesna says, trapster will be more useful in a couple of months once all the dud info loaded up by excited new users disappears. For now, I'm expecting a lot of false alarms - I just hope proper users stick with it.

Dempo1

tm2204 wrote: »

Don't think that was one. no markings or camera stickers on that van.

Yes apparently the sneaky bastards wont have visible markings on them, the one i saw outside mountmellick was not marked although the dome and glass panel on the roof gave it away.

I don't think we have too much to worry about given the ****e the government and we are in, wont be long before these vans are put into storage, just like the electronic voting machines or perhaps used for riot control given the direction this economy is going in.

galwaytt

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)

No, not. Well it is to me, but not in the way you infer.

First, a GPS (or GPS phone btw), does not detect, anything. It is merely a map. Wow, which, is what the Garda website has. So, if I view the GTC website, on my phone browser, is that not the same thing.?

Or, if someone phones me, tells me where it is, I write it on a sticky and put it on the dash - is the sticky illegal too?

Let's go completely mad: if I 'remember' where the guy told me the camera is - am I illegal, too ??

Meanwhile, back on earth, my TomTom uses a map in the public domain, I am using a map provided by the Gardai - so, are the GTC breaking the law by provding the very code the GPS needs, to tell ME where THEY are ?????

FFS. This place is gone nuts....:mad:

Let's not forget, and as we're learning, the info we're talking about doesn't tell us anything about 'devices'. It tell us about: Iveco Daily's, Ford Transit's, Mondeo's, Honda Pan European ST1300's and Deauville 650's.

Iwannahurl

draffodx wrote: »

That doesn't say speed is the biggest risk just that there is a link between speed and accidents

That hardly summarises Elvik's major report. Please read even just the summary before making such glib, and clearly inadequate, assessments.

This brief quote from Elvik is more to the point: "It is difficult to think of any other risk factor that has a more powerful impact on accidents or injuries than speed."

draffodx wrote: »

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.

What is the hard evidence for that assertion?

Education has a crucial role of course, as the RSA and many other authorities readily proclaim. Human nature being what it is, enforcement is also crucial.

draffodx wrote: »

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.

Fashion no less! And there was I thinking (for myself) that the likes of Elvik were actually publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals! Fair play, you have exposed and excoriated them all with your searing intellect.

Not listening? Tell me something I don't know.

No need for you to listen, of course. That's the great thing about enforcement -- it's a great leveller, and ideal for getting the attention of even the most obtuse, recalcitrant and recidivist among us. Eventually.

draffodx wrote: »

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

Wrong again.

My query, though, was not whether the Puma technology could detect speeding but whether marked and unmarked Garda vehicles would actually be roaming the roads mopping up the determinedly non-"fashionable" who might be celebrating their little Trapster victories.

frank gooding

Just drove back from Enfield.

120 all the way to Leixlip exit.

80 all the way to the liffey valley

3 lane well lit motorway standard road.

WTF very frustrating to stick to 80.

drunkmonkey

frank gooding wrote: »

WTF very frustrating to stick to 80.

Time for cruise control?

montane

frank gooding wrote: »

WTF very frustrating to stick to 80.

We should have adjustable speed limits. When that road is dead at night, it could easily be at 100km/p/h.

Davidth88

frank gooding wrote: »

Just drove back from Enfield.

120 all the way to Leixlip exit.

80 all the way to the liffey valley

3 lane well lit motorway standard road.

WTF very frustrating to stick to 80.

Hi , can I ask a silly question to all , the Garda map , is this where these mobile cameras may be set up , are they going to be anywhere else ?

The reason I ask is the N4 mentioned here is not on that map , although it's a fav haunt for the garda white van ( near the deadmans pub and in the bus stop at the old esker exit )

kiwipower

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Indeed. Have a gold star.

Might that also imply maintaining a safe -- and legal -- speed, one wonders?

Part of defensive driving: two second rule for following, maintaining a safe speed, watching whats happening further up the road AND on the sides of the road! Anticipating what MAY happen and being prepared for it!

The main reason I would respond to speed vans in NZ had more to do with open road syndrome (Drivers speed up unaware, when driving on open roads with nothing but a few sheep behind a fence next to you.

stephendevlin

ART6 wrote: »

There is a dilemma for our government (???) in all of this. It is:

1. We need the media kudos in having reduced the "carnage on the roads".
2. We have severe recession and are approaching bankruptcy, so we need to soak the population for every red cent we can get without ever having to be honest and increase direct taxation.
3. We can get a lot of loot using speed cameras, but unfortunately we also enacted a penalty points system whereby a certain number of points means loss of license.
4. If we put too many people off the roads we will lose their motor tax and their fines.

It's a big problem, so what's the solution? Ah:

1. Appoint a private speed camera contractor (we then can't be blamed if he is too efficient and makes himself a few bucks).
2. Ensure that those private cameras move around a lot so that they don't catch the same people often enough for them to lose their licence.
3. Maintain and extend the illogical speed limits that change by at least 50% on blind bends, with a convenient lay-by for camera vans immediately beyond.
4. Announce a Garda crackdown on speeders in one county after another, so that the drivers in the counties not named will feel secure and will not be on the lookout for cameras and vans.
5. Spend money on "Speed Kills" signs on roads where there have been no accidents in living memory (other than Paddy Murphy who fell off his donkey in 1896), thus avoiding spending that money on correcting roads where there have been accidents. Such signs, however, give the impression that we are concerned and are doing something.
6. Appoint to the RSA a media personality who is revered by the public as a national treasure but who doesn't drive. Let him tell the proles how delinquent they are, because they will accept his word, will tell the Rosary, and pay their fines.

Ah! How satisfying politics is!

Statistics show more people die from suicide every year than on the roads. You dont see them spending much money or making a big deal about that fact. :mad:

Ghost Train

Davidth88 wrote: »

Hi , can I ask a silly question to all , the Garda map , is this where these mobile cameras may be set up , are they going to be anywhere else ?

The reason I ask is the N4 mentioned here is not on that map , although it's a fav haunt for the garda white van ( near the deadmans pub and in the bus stop at the old esker exit )

They should only be in the areas marked but Garda speedtraps can still be anywhere, I think the N4 was mentioned for the speed limit

Padraig Mor

Iwannahurl wrote: »

This brief quote from Elvik is more to the point: "It is difficult to think of any other risk factor that has a more powerful impact on accidents or injuries than speed."
.

And?


It's simple physics that the faster you're going, the more severe a collision will be. But it completely ignores the reality of collisions in this country. Although Gardai do not record whether a vehicle involved in an RTA was driving in excess of the posted limit, it is reasonable to assume (based on evidence such as that presented by johndoc) that this is the primary CAUSE of approx. 5% of fatal collisions. 95% of fatal collisions are NOT due to driving over the limit. The vast majority of collisions are due to simple driver error (or deliberate in the case of who knows how many suicides), such as driving on the wrong side of the road.

Speed makes the result of a collision worse, no doubt about it, but it is very rarely the CAUSE of a collision. Focusing almost exclusively on speed is like treating the symptoms, but not the disease. Would you rather your doctor gave you painkillers or chemotherapy if you had cancer? Focusing on speed also implies (to a certain degree) that all other misbehaviour on the road is "not as bad". Every single day I see multiple examples of appalling driving that goes without punishment, sometimes in the view of Gardai. The simple fact is that, speeding aside, the majority of the rules of the road are not enforced.

There's also the inertia effect with the Gardai, a tendency to always blame speed, which I have personally witnessed. I was unfortunate enough to be in a collision, writing off my car and someone else's too. Despite the fact that I was going well under the limit at the time (with the witnesses to prove it), the Garda called to the scene simply kept repeating the moronic mantra that I must have been speeding (and no doubt recorded it as such).

The biggest laugh of the RSA's statistics though is a bizarre omission. Look through their reports. What is NOT listed in the causative factor tables? Alcohol. Yes, believe it or not, whether a driver was over the drink driving limit or not is not recorded by the RSA. Given that the most common type of fatal collision occurs on rural roads after pub closing time, this omission completely undermines any credibility the RSA have.

Just had a look at the RSA website and came across another interesting statistic. Penalty points are grouped by the county of origin of the licence. What is by far the largest grouping (260,000 offences in October 2010 alone)? 'No driving number' - described by the RSA as being foreign driving licences (although I suspect it actually includes Irish people without a licence or banned from driving as well). That October figure represents one third of ALL driving offences that month. Further analysis reveals that this group represented the vast majority (90%) of five penalty point offences (i.e. the most serious ones). Is this not something that should be tackled?




But sure, once we all 'slow down boys', once we 'kill the speed', once we suffer 'speed shame', everything will be alright and it will be an end to deaths on the road.......

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.

By putting in the locations are you or are you not indicating the existence of the cameras (to use the text from the legislation)?

Davidth88 wrote: »

Hi , can I ask a silly question to all , the Garda map , is this where these mobile cameras may be set up , are they going to be anywhere else ?

The reason I ask is the N4 mentioned here is not on that map , although it's a fav haunt for the garda white van ( near the deadmans pub and in the bus stop at the old esker exit )

AFAIK the private ones would be located on the stretches identified on the map. The garda vans could be anywhere.

galwaytt wrote: »

No, not. Well it is to me, but not in the way you infer.

First, a GPS (or GPS phone btw), does not detect, anything. It is merely a map. Wow, which, is what the Garda website has. So, if I view the GTC website, on my phone browser, is that not the same thing.?

Technically yes it would be were it to show the locations of fxed cameras! It isn't really possible to map the location of a mobile camera properly (unless it is quite up-to-date.)

galwaytt wrote: »

Or, if someone phones me, tells me where it is, I write it on a sticky and put it on the dash - is the sticky illegal too?

Let's go completely mad: if I 'remember' where the guy told me the camera is - am I illegal, too ??

In both cases the answer is no because neither would be considered a "device" as per the legislation.

Seth Brundle

Padraig Mor wrote: »

It's simple physics that the faster you're going, the more severe a collision will be. But it completely ignores the reality of collisions in this country. Although Gardai do not record whether a vehicle involved in an RTA was driving in excess of the posted limit, it is reasonable to assume (based on evidence such as that presented by johndoc) that this is the primary CAUSE of approx. 5% of fatal collisions. 95% of fatal collisions are NOT due to driving over the limit. The vast majority of collisions are due to simple driver error (or deliberate in the case of who knows how many suicides), such as driving on the wrong side of the road.

Speed makes the result of a collision worse, no doubt about it, but it is very rarely the CAUSE of a collision. Focusing almost exclusively on speed is like treating the symptoms, but not the disease. Would you rather your doctor gave you painkillers or chemotherapy if you had cancer? Focusing on speed also implies (to a certain degree) that all other misbehaviour on the road is "not as bad". Every single day I see multiple examples of appalling driving that goes without punishment, sometimes in the view of Gardai. The simple fact is that, speeding aside, the majority of the rules of the road are not enforced.

(I'm playing Devil's advocate here...) whilst I agree with you that the actual collision may play a senior role in an incident, the point the RSA (I suspect) are trying to make is that were the driver going slower, they may have walked away from it. (Its all hypothetical really)

Padraig Mor wrote: »

There's also the inertia effect with the Gardai, a tendency to always blame speed, which I have personally witnessed. I was unfortunate enough to be in a collision, writing off my car and someone else's too. Despite the fact that I was going well under the limit at the time (with the witnesses to prove it), the Garda called to the scene simply kept repeating the moronic mantra that I must have been speeding (and no doubt recorded it as such).

Generally speaking, the gardai (in the media anyhow) tend to refer to it as inappropriate speed.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

The biggest laugh of the RSA's statistics though is a bizarre omission. Look through their reports. What is NOT listed in the causative factor tables? Alcohol. Yes, believe it or not, whether a driver was over the drink driving limit or not is not recorded by the RSA. Given that the most common type of fatal collision occurs on rural roads after pub closing time, this omission completely undermines any credibility the RSA have.

How do you know that it's alcohol and not drugs, tiredness, suicide, etc.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Just had a look at the RSA website and came across another interesting statistic. Penalty points are grouped by the county of origin of the licence. What is by far the largest grouping (260,000 offences in October 2010 alone)? 'No driving number' - described by the RSA as being foreign driving licences (although I suspect it actually includes Irish people without a licence or banned from driving as well). That October figure represents one third of ALL driving offences that month. Further analysis reveals that this group represented the vast majority (90%) of five penalty point offences (i.e. the most serious ones). Is this not something that should be tackled?

by virtue of the fact that they are being caught indicatres that the gardai are actually tackling it. However, what exactly can they do that is not being done?

Atomic Pineapple

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That hardly summarises Elvik's major report. Please read even just the summary before making such glib, and clearly inadequate, assessments.

This brief quote from Elvik is more to the point: "It is difficult to think of any other risk factor that has a more powerful impact on accidents or injuries than speed."

So, all that means is that speed is a factor in accidents, no one denies that, the faster your going the more likely you are to die or have serious injuries, it however ignores the fact that you can see in any RSA publication that exceeding the posted speed limit is only the root cause in a very small number of accidents. The quote ignores actual risk factors that are the CAUSE of accidents such as driver error, weather conditions, road conditions, road type and so on.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What is the hard evidence for that assertion?

Look at any RSA publication.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Education has a crucial role of course, as the RSA and many other authorities readily proclaim. Human nature being what it is, enforcement is also crucial.

Proper enforcement of the rules of the road yes, not just concentration on people exceeding a set rigid speed limit, improper and dangerous driving goes unpunished daily, I have seen people dangerously undertake Garda cars without the Gardai in the squad car blinking an eye.

Education is need to weed out such bad driving, enforcement is then needed to ensure it stays away, you cant rely on enforcement alone.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Fashion no less! And there was I thinking (for myself) that the likes of Elvik were actually publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals! Fair play, you have exposed and excoriated them all with your searing intellect.

Elviks journal does not demonise speeding in the manner that the Irish government/RSA/ etc are, its a good paper that admits that speeding is a risk factor and a big one, of course it is, thats not the issue here.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Not listening? Tell me something I don't know.

No need for you to listen, of course. That's the great thing about enforcement -- it's a great leveller, and ideal for getting the attention of even the most obtuse, recalcitrant and recidivist among us. Eventually.

Your still missing the point and not listening yourself, do you even drive?

I am not trying to say speeding is not a bad thing by any means, my opinion though is that these speed cameras are not an effective way to deal with actual speeders that are dangerous and instead will punish many many people who are not a danger on the roads, it is in effect another way to punish the many for the behavior of a few.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Wrong again.

My query, though, was not whether the Puma technology could detect speeding but whether marked and unmarked Garda vehicles would actually be roaming the roads mopping up the determinedly non-"fashionable" who might be celebrating their little Trapster victories.

What I stated was correct, you have changed the phrasing of your question now, the Gardai will continue as they were before the roll out of the new speed cameras.

kbannon wrote: »

(I'm playing Devil's advocate here...) whilst I agree with you that the actual collision may play a senior role in an incident, the point the RSA (I suspect) are trying to make is that were the driver going slower, they may have walked away from it. (Its all hypothetical really)

Which is fine but why let the accident happen in the first place? Why use an enforcement method that allows accidents to happen but hopes that we will be going slow enough to walk away? Why not tackle the cause by implementing driver education, retesting every 10 years, using the GTC to interact with young drivers at events, building better safer roads, training the Gardai to enforce the rules of the road properly, rethink our speed limit policy (if 85% of drivers "speed" on a road without accidents it needs to be revised up, not down), there is so much more to be done first before speed cameras in my opinion.

Padraig Mor

kbannon wrote: »

(I'm playing Devil's advocate here...) whilst I agree with you that the actual collision may play a senior role in an incident, the point the RSA (I suspect) are trying to make is that were the driver going slower, they may have walked away from it. (Its all hypothetical really)

That may be so but, again, what is the best use of resources? To try to prevent accidents full stop, or to simply reduce the associated injuries and deaths? Solely tackling speed is just putting a plaster on a wound, without treating the wound.

Generally speaking, the gardai (in the media anyhow) tend to refer to it as inappropriate speed.

In a way, you're making my point. Speeds under the limit can be very dangerous, but this can not and will not be tackled by speed traps. Proper driver education is key, such that they can respond appropriately to hazardous conditions (including slowing down), rather than simply watching their speedo, as suggested by Noel Brett the other day.

How do you know that it's alcohol and not drugs, tiredness, suicide, etc.

Drugs and tiredness are serious issues that should be tackled (and by focusing on alcohol, I don't intend to suggest otherwise). However, it's simple fact that drink driving, especially in rural areas is a huge problem that is NOT being tackled. Go to any rural pub this weekend and the majority of those driving home will be after a good skinful. Most are not 'on drugs'. Having 'people' in the country, I know this all too well.

by virtue of the fact that they are being caught indicatres that the gardai are actually tackling it. However, what exactly can they do that is not being done?

But that's the issue - they are not 'being caught' per se. They are simply allowed on their way scot free. Not having a licence or having a foreign licence means that points are irrelevant to them and they can continue to drive dangerously without worry until they kill someone. Look at any local paper. See the number of cases whereby people are up for other offences that have no licence (generally they have been banned from driving) and no insurance.

galwaytt

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Time for cruise control?

montane wrote: »

We should have adjustable speed limits. When that road is dead at night, it could easily be at 100km/p/h.

I drove from J13 to J7 on the M50 just after midnight on Monday. In that entire length I saw 4 vehicles. 1 a GTC Mondeo (who had pulled in car btw). The have 3 empty lanes at that time, with a 100kp/h limit, is ridiculous. Then you hit, from J7 M50, out the N4, to M4 at Leixlip. That section, at that hour, I saw, maybe.....5 vehicles..?.......and again 2/3 lanes, deserted, and an 80km/h limit. Stupid, stupid, stupid. There is NO reason the limits on those roads, at times like that, can be dynamic. The M50 could easily have been at least 120, and the N4.....well, pick a number. Even a 100 would have been an improvement. And, I did use cruise, and it's still infuriating.

kbannon wrote: »

By putting in the locations are you or are you not indicating the existence of the cameras (to use the text from the legislation)?
AFAIK the private ones would be located on the stretches identified on the map. The garda vans could be anywhere.

Technically yes it would be were it to show the locations of fxed cameras! It isn't really possible to map the location of a mobile camera properly (unless it is quite up-to-date.)
In both cases the answer is no because neither would be considered a "device" as per the legislation.

Exactly. And again, as the GPS is not a detector, it's allowed.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

That may be so but, again, what is the best use of resources? ................ Speeds under the limit can be very dangerous, but this can not and will not be tackled by speed traps........rather than simply watching their speedo, as suggested by Noel Brett the other day.


Drugs and tiredness are serious issues that should be tackled (and by focusing on alcohol, I don't intend to suggest otherwise). ......... But that's the issue - they are not 'being caught' per se. They are simply allowed on their way scot free. Not having a licence or having a foreign licence means that points are irrelevant to them and they can continue to drive dangerously without worry until they kill someone. Look at any local paper. See the number of cases whereby people are up for other offences that have no licence (generally they have been banned from driving) and no insurance.

Resource? €65,000,000 would buy a lot of GTC officers, equipment, training, and, ultimately, respect - for both the GTC and the Law. Giving it to a guy from Kerry (no offence), with a van, just breeds the exact opposite.
I complained to Mr Brett last night, too, and told him he should spend more time looking out through the windscreen, rather than at the dash.....we'd all be safer that way........
Drink/drugs - the current system, of 'banning' people, who may well be banned already, is fruitless. Time now that there's a semblance of 'don't drink & drive' mentality in the country, to ratchet up the penalties. A short time behind bars would be a good idea, and then for repeat offenders, much bigger fines: even it that means sequestering wages/social welfare. That the penalty for not taxing your car can be more onerous than most other dangerous driving, is a complete nonsense, and further belies any belief that 'safety' is at the heart of the RSA's agenda.

Joe 90

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Noel Brett of the RSA:
"The real way to avoid these cameras is to keep an eye on your speedometer. The idea here is that people change their behaviour.”

There it is from the horse's mouth. Keep your eyes glued to the speedo and to hell with every other aspect of driving such as, say, staying on the correct side of the road (the cause of the majority of fatal 2 car collisions).

It must be a valid defence in court if you run someone over. I didn't see him, I was looking at the speedometer.

Padraig Mor

galwaytt wrote: »

Drink/drugs - the current system, of 'banning' people, who may well be banned already, is fruitless. Time now that there's a semblance of 'don't drink & drive' mentality in the country, to ratchet up the penalties. A short time behind bars would be a good idea, and then for repeat offenders, much bigger fines: even it that means sequestering wages/social welfare. .

I actually think the current penalties are pretty much OK. The problem is twofold: enforcement and enforcement:

1. enforcement of the limit. Your chances of being caught, especially in a rural area, are very low. Gardai need to be saturating (to the extent that's possible) rural areas with testing 23.00 - 03.00 Friday and Saturday nights. Set up shop down the road from the local pub. Breathalyse everyone. Do the same the next week. And the next.

2. enforcement of the penalties. Drunk driver is off the road. If caught, automatic prison sentence. Not another ban. Let's face it - if they've ignored one, they're hardly likely to give a **** about another.


I think we're kinda getting off topic here though......

Ogham

Davidth88 wrote: »

Hi , can I ask a silly question to all , the Garda map , is this where these mobile cameras may be set up , are they going to be anywhere else ?

The reason I ask is the N4 mentioned here is not on that map , although it's a fav haunt for the garda white van ( near the deadmans pub and in the bus stop at the old esker exit )

The Map that everyone is looking at is supposed to be just where the private contractors Gosafe camera vans may be operating.
There are lots of other "Speed Enforcement Zones" that the Gardai will still be doing their own checks - See here for the list of Speed Enforcement Zones for Co Dublin

antomorro-sei

Lads, can anyone tell me where these "fixed GATSO" cameras are/will be?

Don't recall ever seeing one over here

ironclaw

antomorro-sei wrote: »

Lads, can anyone tell me where these "fixed GATSO" cameras are/will be?

Don't recall ever seeing one over here

Think there are 4 operating at the moment. There exact locations will probably take a few months to work out. I can see them being on the M50 gantrys pretty quick.

norrie rugger

kbannon wrote: »

By putting in the locations are you or are you not indicating the existence of the cameras (to use the text from the legislation)?

Not really. You are indicating a previously known position.
If I drive past a speed camera (fixed) and remember where it was, the next time I drive by I will make sure that my speed is correct.

I have no evidence that this camera exists anymore, it could have been moved/destroyed since then. I just make an assumption that there may be one there, I am not detecting it.

Same would go for marking the GPS, in my phone. It allows me to remember where there MAY be a camera, is is not detecting or promising that there will be one there.

Now if I had something that detected the radar (whatever is used) and warn me that there is definately a camera in 100m, that is different

rescue16

norrie rugger wrote: »

Not really. You are indicating a previously known position.
If I drive past a speed camera (fixed) and remember where it was, the next time I drive by I will make sure that my speed is correct.

I have no evidence that this camera exists anymore, it could have been moved/destroyed since then. I just make an assumption that there may be one there, I am not detecting it.

Same would go for marking the GPS, in my phone. It allows me to remember where there MAY be a camera, is is not detecting or promising that there will be one there.

Now if I had something that detected the radar (whatever is used) and warn me that there is definately a camera in 100m, that is different

Should you not be doing the correct speed anyway whether there is a camera or not

norrie rugger

rescue16 wrote: »

Should you not be doing the correct speed anyway whether there is a camera or not

Of course you should be but every driver has sped on one occasion or another.
Be it when overtaking, speed creeping up on an open road, hitting 105kmh coming down a decline, driving behind someone slowly accelerating etc.

Generally these people obey the speed limits and bring their speed down, once they see that they have crept up but they have broken the speed limit, none the less.

So yes; if I know that there is a camera somewhere I will just double check my speed, just to be sure.
(yes i noticed the smiley face, just reminding people that not everyone done for speeding is a speed freak)

rescue16

norrie rugger wrote: »

Of course you should be but every driver has sped on one occasion or another.
Be it when overtaking, speed creeping up on an open road, hitting 105kmh coming down a decline, driving behind someone slowly accelerating etc.

Generally these people obey the speed limits and bring their speed down, once they see that they have crept up but they have broken the speed limit, none the less.

So yes; if I know that there is a camera somewhere I will just double check my speed, just to be sure.
(yes i noticed the smiley face, just reminding people that not everyone done for speeding is a speed freak)

With all my talk coming back from training with a few of the lads in the car tonight i was driving on a straight road and i spotted a traffic corps car driving in front of me so i checked my speed was doing fine next thing this fool over took me flying off the road but he never saw the garda car in front of me he was caught red handed of course dopey here was watching the cops pulling him over and forgot about what speed i was doing until one of the guys said watch it there is one of them new cameras. So I take it back you can drift over the speed limit without knowing it . Cruise control from now on !!

paddy462

Jcastle wrote: »

Facts: I asked the RSA, the Gardai and the Welsh Office of Go Safe about leniency on the cameras.
RSA: "The operational deployment of the Safety Cameras is managed by the Gardaí, all queries in relation to the safety cameras should be forwarded to them."

Gardai said " The legal obligation rests on the driver of a vehicle to drive at all times within the speed limit and at a speed appropriate to the driving conditions.

I am not going to answer your specific query, but please be assured the service provider will be operating under the control of An Garda Siochana and enforcement will carried out in a fair manner."

Go Safe Wales said " The ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) recommended thresholds currently stand at 10% of the speed limit +2mph.
Cameras in the Wales Road Casualty Reduction Partnership do not trigger at speeds below this."

The 10% + 2mph rule appears to be applied across the water. It's not something to go by over here.
There doesn't seem to be any such rule over here, can only hope common sense prevails.
Someone mentioned in New Zealand how accidents can happen if people are watching their speedos. I'd imagine, but there does not seem to be any proof so it has to be taken with a pinch of salt, that there has so be some lee-way of about 10% of the speed and 8km/hr max.

stimpson

paddy462 wrote: »

Someone mentioned in New Zealand how accidents can happen if people are watching their speedos. I'd imagine, but there does not seem to be any proof so it has to be taken with a pinch of salt, that there has so be some lee-way of about 10% of the speed and 8km/hr max.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/july00speed.htm

The closest New Zealand gets to any worthwhile statistics at all are the figures that measure the ratio of deaths to the number of cars on the road.

For the ten years that our maximum speed limit was only 80 kilometres per hour, an average of 3.75 New Zealanders were killed each year for every ten thousand cars on the road.

For the ten years after that, when the speed limit increased to 100 kph, the average number of deaths dropped by 12%, to just 3.27 deaths per 10,000 vehicles.

The ratio of people injured per 10,000 vehicles tells a similar story: during the low speed era, an average of 100.6 injuries. During the high speed era that followed: just 80.5. A twenty percent drop in injuries in real terms when cars were allowed to travel faster.

Flesh Gorden

Just found this in the garda site, not sure if it's been pointed out as someone mentioned unmarked 10-KY reg gatso vans

On a phased basis, GoSafe will provide 6,000 enforcement hours and 1,475 survey hours per month across the country.

For the 6,000 enforcement hours, the cameras will operate from vans which will be marked with high visibility reflective material and will display a safety camera symbol. Images of the vans are available on the right hand side of this page.

The survey hours will be conducted from unmarked vans, in order to accurately observe and record the speeds at which vehicles are currently travelling, for survey purposes only.

Still though must be pretty insulting to the existing traffic corps,

" Lads yer doing such a great job raising cash we're going to sign a €65m contract to a welsh company operating out of Kerry to allow Polish lads to do the same job you've been trained for"


Has anyone worked out how many fines each of the 45 vans will have to average to break even on €65m after the 5 years?
I worked it out at 18k fines per van with 3611 per year but that could be fairly wrong

gerardk55

Has anyone received a fixed penalty notice from one of the new vans yet?

I drove past one last night, was slowing down but might have been pinged, unsure really, just wondering what the turn around is on the notice? When I can expect my correspondence!

Any of the vans I've seen have not had any high viz markings on them.