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

Iwannahurl

Marlow wrote: »

While it does not mention the speed cameras at all, it points out, that no significant decrease in road accidents has made. If you correlate that with the amount of speed cameras rolled out in the UK at the same tame (which is massive) there is no clear benefit from these.

The problems with the links that you quoting is that they are basing themselves on the same flawed data as the police in the UK.

It has even been admitted, that the data that shows the decrease in accidents is flawed.

The most fun part is, that in 2006, there was a report in the UK, that showed, that "Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 percent of cars involved in accidents," the report stated. (Page 42). The report can be found here: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2007/uk-2006roadsafety.pdf

The whole scenario, that "speed is the biggest killer" in Ireland is a joke. Sure, speed might be a contribution to a good few accident, but the main cause for the accident is often something else.

Anyhow, I don't have a problem with the camera vans, if they are placed as intended in accident prone spots on urban and maybe rural roads, where accidents have been an issue over the past.

The location on the N6 is neither an accident prone spot (I have never ever seen an accident there, nor heard of any), nor is there a problem with visibility and it's a dual-carriageway. The placement of the van there will cause disruption to traffic (because of people braking) more than delivering a safe environment.

/M

1. The British Medical Journal study you referred to was not designed to assess the contribution of speed/safety cameras to road safety. Any correlation is therefore conjecture, and this paper cannot be used to support the hypothesis that there is no clear benefit from such speed control measures. However, the BMJ paper deserves serious attention, and I will do my best to give it such consideration (in due course).

2. There does seem to be an issue with the collection and reporting of road collision/casualty data. However, if these are the only statistics available then they are flawed for everyone including speed camera sceptics. Clearly the authorities believe that the evidence for speed cameras justifies their use. Those arguing against speed cameras do not produce conclusive evidence from alternative peer-reviewed sources that supports the opposite view. Rather they seek to create doubt about existing official data and policies, in addition to disseminating emotive rhetoric about "stealth tax" etc. My understanding of the evidence base is that specific studies of speed camera operations have shown them to be effective in reducing average speed as well as casualties. Here's another BMJ link by way of a quick example: Speed cameras “do a good job” in reducing road deaths and injuries (October 2010).

3. Who made such an admission?

4. Nothing funny about death and injury on the roads, or about sincere well-intentioned efforts to improve road safety.

5. The report you refer to, Road Casualties Great Britain 2006, is 184 pages long and full of detailed tables. I simply don't have time to go into it in depth. However, it is clear that your selective quote ("Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 percent of cars involved in accidents") doesn't do the report justice. Firstly, the figures come from multi-component police reports, and as such are dependent on what police officers record (or don't record) regarding road collision incidents. See pages 36 & 37 for discussion of the complexities and inadequacies of reporting multiple contributory factors. You quote a single figure reported in Table 4d. This is the full paragraph (emphasis added by me):

Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents, while travelling too fast for conditions was attributed to 6 per cent. For fatal accidents these figures are 10 per cent and 13 per cent respectively.

Note the reference to cars and to the higher percentages for fatalities. The percentages in Table 4d are different from those in Table 4b which gives the percentage of accidents with each contributory factor. The report says clearly (same page number you cite, but a few lines earlier):

Part of the reason for the lower number when looking at the percentage of vehicles is that 116,133 vehicles (43 per cent) involved in accidents had no contributory factor reported.

To take just one statement in the report relating to the numbers in Table 4b, Exceeding speed limit was a contributory factor in 14% of fatal accidents. And that is to say nothing of the role of excessive speed as both a co-factor and an 'intensifier' with regard to other contributory factors.

6. If motorists drive at or below the posted speed limit, and according to the prevailing conditions, then there will be no abnormal "disruption to traffic". Whatever about stau caused by the aggregated effect of varying vehicle speeds and individual motorists' driving behaviour, driving at a legal and appropriate speed cannot be construed as "disruption".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M

ironclaw

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Exceeding speed limit was a contributory factor in 14% of fatal accidents.

A whole 14% Thats 86% of all accidents unaccounted for. So does 65 million justify a fatal 14%? No. It doesn't. Imagine what 65 million could do educating people on proper driving? Maybe get SGS back and do proper driving tests and less of that red tape from the public service. Maybe mandatory re-testing?

Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents, while travelling too fast for conditions was attributed to 6 per cent. For fatal accidents these figures are 10 per cent and 13 per cent respectively

They are entirely different statistics. A person speeding and a person speeding who cannot handle road conditions are different. There are plenty of excellent drivers in this country who could thread a needle at twice the speed limit. And 3% on any scale is negligible in my opinion.

I'm sorry but I'm growing tired of these statistics. They are great and I actually enjoy reading them but I don't feel they're justifying your point at all.

6. If motorists drive at or below the posted speed limit, and according to the prevailing conditions, then there will be no abnormal "disruption to traffic".

Rubbish. Even if someone is 100% certain they are below the limit, there natural instinct will be to brake or slow down. I suppose its part of the complex that one wants to be certain not to be caught. I doubt anyone would blast by at the speed limit without braking or slowing down (I'm not differentiating between braking and going down a gear)

Either way, if you measured the average speed of vehicles on a road with and without a speed camera, you'd find a huge difference I would say.

That picture of the van in the snow is down right dangerous. Let people concentrate on driving in the conditions and not have to worry (Even though it would be impossible to speed) about their speed. Once less distraction, and thats all that van is in those conditions.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

A whole 14% Thats 86% of all accidents unaccounted for. So does 65 million justify a fatal 14%? No. It doesn't. Imagine what 65 million could do educating people on proper driving? Maybe get SGS back and do proper driving tests and less of that red tape from the public service. Maybe mandatory re-testing?

They are entirely different statistics. A person speeding and a person speeding who cannot handle road conditions are different. There are plenty of excellent drivers in this country who could thread a needle at twice the speed limit. And 3% on any scale is negligible in my opinion.

I'm sorry but I'm growing tired of these statistics. They are great and I actually enjoy reading them but I don't feel they're justifying your point at all.

Rubbish. Even if someone is 100% certain they are below the limit, there natural instinct will be to brake or slow down. I suppose its part of the complex that one wants to be certain not to be caught. I doubt anyone would blast by at the speed limit without braking or slowing down (I'm not differentiating between braking and going down a gear)

Either way, if you measured the average speed of vehicles on a road with and without a speed camera, you'd find a huge difference I would say.

1. Doesn't follow. Speed/safety cameras are not an either/or measure and no competent authority or road safety advocate is suggesting that other causes of accidents should be ignored. The cost benefits of speed cameras have been estimated at 2.7:1 so clearly they pay their way. Try telling the families of people killed on the roads that reducing casualties by, say, 14% is not worth the expense -- that would be around 1 in every 8 lives saved, all real people with names and addresses. In any case, according to a large number of research studies the reduction in injury crashes is more in the order of 20% on average. See below.

2. The point of the 3% versus 14% was to demonstrate that Marlow was selectively quoting a lower figure that he erroneously believed supported his contention. In reality the same report was citing a more relevant figure nearly five times higher. Referring to "excellent drivers" is just special pleading that takes no account of the need for universal speed control measures. Similar special pleading has been heard in relation to controls on drink driving -- no doubt there are a few 'excellent drinkers' in this country who can thread a needle after quaffing a skinful. So what? It would be unworkable and unsustainable to try to formulate public policy on the basis of a few such outliers.

3. Statistics = evidence = justification for public policy. Growing tired of statistics suggests an unwillingness to get to grips with evidence and a preference for unsubstantiated opinion. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, and have every right to engage in a good "chinwag" regarding their views, at the end of the day what matters in terms of appropriate road safety policy is evidence.

4. The point I'm making is that the evidence justifies the use of speed/safety cameras. Here's what the Dutch national safety research institute SWOV has to say:

SWOV Fact sheet, Speed cameras: how they work and what effect they have, November 2009.

A great deal of research has been carried out regarding the effects of speed cameras. Although the exact results vary per study, almost all the studies have observed a reduction in speed and in the number of crashes at locations with camera surveillance.

.../...

Although the individual effects of the speed cameras are limited as to time and distance, when combined over various locations and a number of years, they can jointly have a substantial road safety effect. This is because there is a very strong link between driving speed and road safety.

.../...

Three recent international review studies report that speed cameras produce a reduction of approximately 20% in personal injury crashes on road sections where cameras are used.

.../...

This research is primarily concerned with ‘before’ and ‘after’ comparisons between the number of crashes on road sections with cameras and road sections without cameras. In addition, there are modelled comparisons between the crash trend of road sections with cameras and the general national trend.

The first review is by Wilson et al. (2006). They have examined 21 studies from various parts of the world, which qualify as good. Based on these studies, Wilson et al. concluded that the number of personal injury crashes on roads and in areas with fixed or mobile cameras decreased by 7% to 30% compared to similar roads or areas without cameras.

The second review study is an analysis of international literature that was published in 2008 (Thomas et al., 2008). This study has only examined the effects of fixed cameras. It shows that the number of personal injury crashes on road sections where cameras were used was reduced by 20 to 25%.

The third review is also from 2008, and is a meta-analysis of studies on traffic law enforcement (Ercke, Goldenbeld & Vaa, 2009). This review distinguishes between the effects of mobile and fixed cameras. Ercke, Goldenbeld & Vaa reported a reduction in the number of personal injury crashes of 35% for fixed cameras, and 14% for mobile cameras.

In addition to these three reviews, we would also like to mention the effects of an extensive evaluation study in Great Britain with its long history in the use of speed cameras. This evaluation (Gains et al., 2005), also distinguishes between fixed position and mobile cameras. The study showed a reduction in personal injury crashes of 24% with the use of fixed position cameras, and 21% with the use of mobile cameras.

You might possibly derive some satisfaction from the conclusion of the SWOV briefing:

There has been little research into the undesirable side effects of speed cameras, such as sudden deceleration and acceleration in the vicinity of cameras, and the migration of crashes to other locations. However, experts do not exclude the possibility that such effects occur. It is therefore important to include an evaluation of possible side effects when planning camera projects.

The positive effects of speed cameras do not automatically signify that cameras are also always the most effective measure for speed management and road safety improvement. In built-up areas in particular, infrastructural measures can be considerably more effective.

My own conclusion: the safety benefits of speed cameras have been proven time and time again, and research has consistently shown a reduction in injury collisions of approximately 20%. This alone justifies the expense of introducing a speed/safety camera programme in Ireland.

Even though speed/safety cameras have been proven to be of benefit, they are not the only effective intervention and the best approach is to combine multiple enforcement methods with other universal measures such as engineering and education, with regular evaluations of all measures contributing to improvements in methods and outcomes over time.

Luckily that's the approach favoured by the Road Safety Authority.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

Even if someone is 100% certain they are below the limit, there natural instinct will be to brake or slow down. I suppose its part of the complex that one wants to be certain not to be caught. I doubt anyone would blast by at the speed limit without braking or slowing down (I'm not differentiating between braking and going down a gear)

Either way, if you measured the average speed of vehicles on a road with and without a speed camera, you'd find a huge difference I would say.

I would hope there would be a difference, as that is the whole point of speed cameras.

But a huge difference? Not necessarily.

In the SWOV Fact Sheet referred to above, the issue of average speed reduction is briefly addressed with reference to two studies.

The results of the first study showed that the average speed dropped from 78 to 72 km/h (a reduction of 8%), while the standard deviation of speeds fell from 10 to 8 km/h (indicating a reduction in the size of the variation between drivers' speeds).

In the second study there was a reduction in average speed from 82.6 to 78.6 km/h (a drop of 5%). SWOV do not mention speed variance in relation to this study.

A Cochrane Review of 35 speed camera studies found a relative reduction in average speed ranging from 1% to 15%. This review did not report details regarding speed variance.

There is a recognised 'kangaroo' or 'surfing' effect around fixed speed cameras, and it is reported that the use of Average Speed Cameras (aka Section Control) reduces such effects and smooths out the variation/dispersion between vehicle speeds. However, I suspect that Section Control is a lot more expensive. If people are complaining about €65 million for fixed and mobile speed cameras, you can imagine the kerfuffle over greater costs for Section Control, despite the added benefits of such technology.

Marlow

Iwannahurl wrote: »

6. If motorists drive at or below the posted speed limit, and according to the prevailing conditions, then there will be no abnormal "disruption to traffic". Whatever about stau caused by the aggregated effect of varying vehicle speeds and individual motorists' driving behaviour, driving at a legal and appropriate speed cannot be construed as "disruption".

Look at people's brakelights the next time you meet one of these vans. It doesn't matter, if they are below the limit or not. The first reaction is to move the foot to the brake and to either tap it or brake.

ironclaw wrote: »

Rubbish. Even if someone is 100% certain they are below the limit, there natural instinct will be to brake or slow down. I suppose its part of the complex that one wants to be certain not to be caught. I doubt anyone would blast by at the speed limit without braking or slowing down (I'm not differentiating between braking and going down a gear)

Either way, if you measured the average speed of vehicles on a road with and without a speed camera, you'd find a huge difference I would say.

That picture of the van in the snow is down right dangerous. Let people concentrate on driving in the conditions and not have to worry (Even though it would be impossible to speed) about their speed. Once less distraction, and thats all that van is in those conditions.

Exactly my point.

The money would be better spend in improving signage, as in removing unecessary signage, standardizing signage and amount of such across the country and invest in driver tuition. That would really safe lives in huge percentages compared to camera vans. This includes removal of road works signage (and enforce that contractors do so), flooded road signs and other stuff, when not needed anymore.

Quite a few people won't even see the van, because it's probably just another meaningless sign. The result of so many pointless signs in this country. The ones that do, will hit the brakes, no matter if they are over the speed limit or not, out of pure reflex.

The camera van at that spot, in that weather and in that situation is in no way to see as a benefit. It add's another level of concern to the road users.

/M

Mo60

Are these Speed Cameras for road safety or just for obtaining revenue? Two weeks ago one was positioned just past a sign where the speed drops down to 50kph on what must be one of the safest roads in Offaly. To my knowledge there has not been an accident on this road in the last ten years.

Dempo1

Mo60 wrote: »

Are these Speed Cameras for road safety or just for obtaining revenue? Two weeks ago one was positioned just past a sign where the speed drops down to 50kph on what must be one of the safest roads in Offaly. To my knowledge there has not been an accident on this road in the last ten years.

Yes I spotted that one, only confirming my suspicions about the real agenda behind these vans. There are those who will recite reams of statistics about the advantages of said vehicles but over the past couple of days, witnessing these Vans in absurd locations and I might add weather, my mind is made up. One Vans windscreen, side windows and roof was covered in Snow! Just bizarre. Poor devils must have seen revenues diminish somewhat before the Christmas season!

What infuriates me is the misinformation in the RSA's latest add campaign where they state incorrectly that these Vans are being positioned in Areas where people have been killed in the past ten years. I don't recall most of the motorways even been existance ten years ago.

What i would like to see the RSA (Particularly that pratt with the american accent) do is address the disgraceful conditions the roads are in both now and prior to the snow fall, The M4 by all accounts has not seen so much of an ounce of grit. In addition few if any repairs have been done to the road network since last years cold spell, god knows what condition the roads will be in after this winter!

Aerohead

We should send this thread and the pictures of speed camera vans to the RSA and ask them what are they up to, they are not sticking to the locations of the cameras where they said they would be on their TV and Radio ads

Iwannahurl

Marlow wrote: »

Look at people's brakelights the next time you meet one of these vans. It doesn't matter, if they are below the limit or not. The first reaction is to move the foot to the brake and to either tap it or brake.

Quite a few people won't even see the van

Mo60 wrote: »

Are these Speed Cameras for road safety or just for obtaining revenue?

Dempo1 wrote: »

confirming my suspicions about the real agenda behind these vans.

There are those who will recite reams of statistics about the advantages of said vehicles but over the past couple of days, witnessing these Vans in absurd locations and I might add weather, my mind is made up. One Vans windscreen, side windows and roof was covered in Snow! Just bizarre. Poor devils must have seen revenues diminish somewhat before the Christmas season!

What i would like to see the RSA (Particularly that pratt with the american accent) do is address the disgraceful conditions the roads are in both now and prior to the snow fall

More confused and contradictory verbiage about speed/safety cameras.

If some people slow down when they see a speed camera van, so what? If quite a few people won't even see the van (busy watching their speed and the road ahead, presumably) then they won't be braking. The simple solution is for everybody to drive habitually at a legal and appropriate speed. Then no fines, no penalty points, no needless angst, and no reason for desperately scratching around for something -- anything -- negative to say about speed cameras.

The revenue question has been answered over and over again. GoSafe are paid a flat fee, and nobody has to pay a fine if they stay within the speed limit. No speeding, no revenue -- it's a no brainer.

As far as I am aware, the RSA has no spokesman with an American accent. I suspect you're thinking of the NRA's Sean O'Neill. The RSA has no role in road maintenance.

Dempo1

Iwannahurl wrote: »

More confused and contradictory verbiage about speed/safety cameras.


As far as I am aware, the RSA has no spokesman with an American accent. I suspect you're thinking of the NRA's Sean O'Neill. The RSA has no role in road maintenance.

Apologies for the Typo's i meant the NRA, this Seawn O' Neill is still a complete Pratt let alone a buffoon. I again reiterate that whilst speed does play a major role in accidents and sadly deaths on our roads, we rarely if ever hear about the disgraceful conditions some of our roads are in and this certainly is the NRA's responsibility. Whilst some will agree and some will disagree about these speed Vans, the merits are not helped by clear misinformation about their locations, any other organization promoting false advertising would face the wrath of the advertising standards authority.

I am still curious as to the whereabouts of the Garda Corps these days, its somewhat mysterious their absence since the introduction of these Vans, not a mention of this anywhere and i do believe these vans have in essence relieved the Garda corps of this important responsibility (one of the reasons it was set up in the first place)

I predict, much like the Brits, this speed van innovative will end up in an expense scrap heap within a short space of time but not before it enriches Messer Mc Cauliffe.

Marlow

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If some people slow down when they see a speed camera van, so what?

I'm not talking about slowing down. I'm talking about braking. And sudden braking is a safety issue. Especially in this weather.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If quite a few people won't even see the van (busy watching their speed and the road ahead, presumably) then they won't be braking. The simple solution is for everybody to drive habitually at a legal and appropriate speed.

Well, that's EXACTLY what you don't want. People driving habitually are the worst you can come across, because their reaction to something happening is in general slow, because their lack of concentration.

Actually, heres an example of your so called habitually driver breaking several limits, where only one of them might be picked up by your loved speed cameras: An old Isuzu Trooper enters the N61 coming from Hudson Bay without indicating, without stopping, without looking for oncoming traffic (which is a sideroad, where he is supposed to come to a full stop, causing me to brake to avoid collision), proceeds at 70-80 km/h towards Athlone (in the 60 km/h zone) and continues at the same constant 70-80 km/h once the speed limit is changed to 100 km/h. That's your habitual driver there. Just happened yesterday and it's not the first time.

The only thing of that, the speed camera would have picked up is him speeding within the 60 km/h, but not any of the other violations, which are even more severe. If there was a speed camera van there. But there never is one, nor a garda speed check. Instead they stick it in the 100 km/h on the dual carriageway where there is no issue and where people like this never will be caught. And that not a once off, have spotted it 2 times down there so far.

/M

Iwannahurl

Marlow wrote: »

I'm not talking about slowing down. I'm talking about braking. And sudden braking is a safety issue. Especially in this weather.



Well, that's EXACTLY what you don't want. People driving habitually are the worst you can come across, because their reaction to something happening is in general slow, because their lack of concentration.

Actually, heres an example of your so called habitually driver breaking several limits, where only one of them might be picked up by your loved speed cameras: An old Isuzu Trooper enters the N61 coming from Hudson Bay without indicating, without stopping, without looking for oncoming traffic (which is a sideroad, where he is supposed to come to a full stop, causing me to brake to avoid collision), proceeds at 70-80 km/h towards Athlone (in the 60 km/h zone) and continues at the same constant 70-80 km/h once the speed limit is changed to 100 km/h. That's your habitual driver there. Just happened yesterday and it's not the first time.

The only thing of that, the speed camera would have picked up is him speeding within the 60 km/h, but not any of the other violations, which are even more severe. If there was a speed camera van there. But there never is one, nor a garda speed check. Instead they stick it in the 100 km/h on the dual carriageway where there is no issue and where people like this never will be caught. And that not a once off, have spotted it 2 times down there so far.

/M

What I actually wrote was "the simple solution is for everybody to drive habitually at a legal and appropriate speed." Different emphasis entirely.

Atomic Pineapple

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What I actually wrote was "the simple solution is for everybody to drive habitually at a legal and appropriate speed." Different emphasis entirely.

There is a difference between a legal and an appropriate speed.

120 km/h on a two lane high quality road with only on/off ramps with a legal limit of 100 km/h is an appropriate but illegal speed.

90km/h on a winding back road with a posted legal limit of 100 km/h is an inappropriate but legal speed.

80km/h in icy, snowy conditions on any road with a limit say of 80 km/h is an inappropriate yet legal speed.

Iwannahurl

draffodx wrote: »

There is a difference between a legal and an appropriate speed.

120 km/h on a two lane high quality road with only on/off ramps with a legal limit of 100 km/h is an appropriate but illegal speed.

90km/h on a winding back road with a posted legal limit of 100 km/h is an inappropriate but legal speed.

80km/h in icy, snowy conditions on any road with a limit say of 80 km/h is an inappropriate yet legal speed.

And therefore...?

Atomic Pineapple

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And therefore...?

The cameras are an ineffective tool at catching people who speed but just don't break a legal limit.

And would be much better used in conjunction with a driver education scheme that teaches people in Ireland how to drive and how to adjust to road and weather conditions among other things.

And also an authority in charge of assessing the roads and implementing correct limits according to the road type, surface quality, road safety and estimated usage.

Only in conjunction with things like the above would a speed camera network be then fully worth 65 million in my opinion.

Iwannahurl

draffodx wrote: »

The cameras are an ineffective tool at catching people who speed but just don't break a legal limit.

And would be much better used in conjunction with a driver education scheme that teaches people in Ireland how to drive and how to adjust to road and weather conditions among other things.

And also an authority in charge of assessing the roads and implementing correct limits according to the road type, surface quality, road safety and estimated usage.

Only in conjunction with things like the above would a speed camera network be then fully worth 65 million in my opinion.

Speed cameras are an effective tool in catching people who break the speed limit, thereby contributing to an overall deterrent effect against speeding. That is their function. That is why they exist. That is why they are installed.

According to numerous studies internationally, speed cameras deliver a proven safety dividend of around 20% in terms of reduced road casualties.

Research shows that speed cameras have a cost-benefit ratio of more than 2 to 1, which is even higher than Section Control.

When it comes to developing, implementing and supporting good public policy, evidence is what counts, not opinion.

Mo60

Iwannahurl wrote: »

More confused and contradictory verbiage about speed/safety cameras.

If some people slow down when they see a speed camera van, so what? If quite a few people won't even see the van (busy watching their speed and the road ahead, presumably) then they won't be braking. The simple solution is for everybody to drive habitually at a legal and appropriate speed. Then no fines, no penalty points, no needless angst, and no reason for desperately scratching around for something -- anything -- negative to say about speed cameras.

The revenue question has been answered over and over again. GoSafe are paid a flat fee, and nobody has to pay a fine if they stay within the speed limit. No speeding, no revenue -- it's a no brainer.

As far as I am aware, the RSA has no spokesman with an American accent. I suspect you're thinking of the NRA's Sean O'Neill. The RSA has no role in road maintenance.

My previous post was pointing out the easy option in obtaining revenue - surely the more money that is collected the more likely the contract is renewed.
Three miles further out of the town there are other roads on which accidents have occured, including fatalities. Surely it would be better to have speed checks on these roads.

Dempo1

These Vans would not have been much use on what i witnessed along the N7 today, but then again they are stationary and in absolutely pointless locations. Along the N7 from EMO to NAAS the road was down to one land, primarily because those useless ****s at the NRA did not insure the road was gritted. Anyway, I'm driving along at around 70/90 kph, Reasonable i felt in driving snow and treacherous conditions.

Van/Trucks and even a Bus Eireann coach (fully loaded) along with a few crazy drivers took advantage of a clear but heavily iced outside lane to overtake at ludicrous speeds, splashing up chunks of Ice and Sludge on drivers in the inside lane taking car!

The whole approach to speeding and its monitoring is just stupidity!

Of course not a Garda Corps car to be seen monitoring the motorway!

Iwannahurl

I don't know how often the speed camera contract is up for renewal, but I would hope that it would be renewed on the basis of road safety effectiveness (ie speed reduction, casualty reduction).

I'm not impressed with the NRA either (eg their ludicrous policy re motorway services) but their shortcomings do not add one whit to any alleged case against speed cameras.

Neither am I impressed with the Traffic Corps speed surveillance/law enforcement effort to date, but again that does not negate the validity of speed cameras.

By the way, a thread on Traffic Corps operations and effectiveness might be a good idea. However, I get the impression that such a thread would be immediately squashed to foil supposed "Garda bashing".

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

A person speeding and a person speeding who cannot handle road conditions are different. There are plenty of excellent drivers in this country who could thread a needle at twice the speed limit.

Let people concentrate on driving in the conditions and not have to worry (Even though it would be impossible to speed) about their speed.

Are these some of the needle threaders I wonder?

And does taking photos while driving come under the rubric of 'concentrating on driving in the conditions'?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69442943&postcount=9

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69440250&postcount=1

Marlow

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And does taking photos while driving come under the rubric of 'concentrating on driving in the conditions'?

Hah. Just what I was waiting for. You are making assumptions that you can't back up.

Could it be a passenger, that has made the picture ? Could it be a camera, that is mounted fixed and the picture is a snapshot of a videostream ? etc. etc. etc. And no, even from the position/angle where the picture is taken, you can't assume anything. (I f.eks. drive both LHD and RHD cars in this country).

I wouldn't even go there, if I was you.

/M

-Corkie-

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Are these some of the needle threaders I wonder?

And does taking photos while driving come under the rubric of 'concentrating on driving in the conditions'?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69442943&postcount=9

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69440250&postcount=1

Have you thought about this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055690808

Iwannahurl

Marlow wrote: »

Hah. Just what I was waiting for.

Marlow wrote: »

Could it be a passenger, that has made the picture ? Could it be a camera, that is mounted fixed and the picture is a snapshot of a videostream ? etc. etc. etc. And no, even from the position/angle where the picture is taken, you can't assume anything.

"I took this picture at 11am driving from Bristol to Chester, UK last Friday 3rd December, I had never seen my outside temp gauge go so low! I was on the motorway doing 60mph, I could feel the car skid underneath me..."

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69442943&postcount=9

Marlow wrote: »

I wouldn't even go there, if I was you.

Dempo1

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I don't know how often the speed camera contract is up for renewal, but I would hope that it would be renewed on the basis of road safety effectiveness (ie speed reduction, casualty reduction).

I'm not impressed with the NRA either (eg their ludicrous policy re motorway services) but their shortcomings do not add one whit to any alleged case against speed cameras.

Neither am I impressed with the Traffic Corps speed surveillance/law enforcement effort to date, but again that does not negate the validity of speed cameras.

By the way, a thread on Traffic Corps operations and effectiveness might be a good idea. However, I get the impression that such a thread would be immediately squashed to foil supposed "Garda bashing".

Yep u have my general agreement on the above. I have raised the issue re Garda traffic corps and their mysterious absence since the intro of these new speed cameras, i am not Garda bashing but i genuinely get a sense they have been deployed back to barracks since the intro of the new camera vans. I travel quite a lot and have seen little or no presence of the corps over the past number of weeks apart from the protests outside the dail and as posted previously traffic corps vehicles parked up at various barracks at times one would expect them to be on duty. Just a humble observation.

Iwannahurl

Dempo1 wrote: »

Yep u have my general agreement on the above. I have raised the issue re Garda traffic corps and their mysterious absence since the intro of these new speed cameras, i am not Garda bashing but i genuinely get a sense they have been deployed back to barracks since the intro of the new camera vans. I travel quite a lot and have seen little or no presence of the corps over the past number of weeks apart from the protests outside the dail and as posted previously traffic corps vehicles parked up at various barracks at times one would expect them to be on duty. Just a humble observation.

And a valid one.

I don't do enough mileage or cover enough of the country to be able to make an assessment of Traffic Corps presence generally. What I do know is that I have personally encountered just one single solitary Garda speed check in my neck of the woods over the last three years or so (conservative estimate).

samsemtex

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Speed cameras are an effective tool in catching people who break the speed limit, thereby contributing to an overall deterrent effect against speeding. That is their function. That is why they exist. That is why they are installed.

According to numerous studies internationally, speed cameras deliver a proven safety dividend of around 20% in terms of reduced road casualties.

Research shows that speed cameras have a cost-benefit ratio of more than 2 to 1, which is even higher than Section Control.

When it comes to developing and implementing good public policy, evidence is what counts, not opinion.

Absolute nonsense. They do not implement good policy. I just got a letter in the post telling me I was doing 82kph in a 60kph zone. 4 people are insured to drive my car, i have ZERO idea of where this offence supposedly occured, I have no way of fighting it.

If a Garda had pulled me I would have been warned there and then, I would know where it happened, I would know who was driving and I would probably slow down. As it stands I have been fined for something I probably didnt even do as it was on my day off and I dont remember being in that general area.

They are a ****ing joke.

Dempo1

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And a valid one.

I don't do enough mileage or cover enough of the country to be able to make an assessment of Traffic Corps presence generally. What I do know is that I have personally encountered just one single solitary Garda speed check in my neck of the woods over the last three years or so (conservative estimate).

The last one i saw was the october bank holiday weekend 2009 at newlands cross, about 6 cars, motor bikes and a tail back about 3 miles long, when i reached it, the gards were not even checking anything, it was just a pr show of presence stunt. Infuriating and pointless.

Iwannahurl

samsemtex wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. They do not implement good policy. I just got a letter in the post telling me I was doing 82kph in a 60kph zone. 4 people are insured to drive my car, i have ZERO idea of where this offence supposedly occured, I have no way of fighting it.

If a Garda had pulled me I would have been warned there and then, I would know where it happened, I would know who was driving and I would probably slow down. As it stands I have been fined for something I probably didnt even do as it was on my day off and I dont remember being in that general area.

They are a ****ing joke.

Nothing to do with the general case for speed cameras.

It seems to me you have three issues to deal with:

1. The legalities of receiving a speeding ticket in such circumstances.
2. A lack of control and awareness regarding who is using your car, where and when.
3. Absent-mindedness or memory loss.

Dempo1

samsemtex wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. They do not implement good policy. I just got a letter in the post telling me I was doing 82kph in a 60kph zone. 4 people are insured to drive my car, i have ZERO idea of where this offense supposedly occurred, I have no way of fighting it.

If a Garda had pulled me I would have been warned there and then, I would know where it happened, I would know who was driving and I would probably slow down. As it stands I have been fined for something I probably didn't even do as it was on my day off and I dont remember being in that general area.

They are a ****ing joke.

I'm no fan of these speed cameras but i beg to ask the following question.

Surely when a summons is issued, the date, time and place of offense is listed on the summons, in addition i was led to believe a photo with date stamp would be submitted? based on these facts, surely it would not take a rocket scientist to work out the details you refer too and whom was driving the car?

Marlow

I was only referring to this:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And does taking photos while driving come under the rubric of 'concentrating on driving in the conditions'?

Especially, because I'm the last, that posted a picture in this thread.

The URLs I didn't quote nor comment, as they have nothing to do with the speed cameras, which are discussed in this thread.

Marlow wrote: »

You are making assumptions that you can't back up.

And I've already pointed out, that your statement above is completely vague in relation to the photos posted in THIS thread. Sure there are people that drive and take pictures and there are equally many if not more, that have somebody else in the car taking the picture and then there's a few, that have a fixed mounted camera. It has nothing to do with the speed cameras though.

/M