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

ironclaw

-Chris- wrote: »

Cool, just checking. I'm hoping we get some photos of vans parked where they're not supposed to be.

Should really be a separate thread for it. Its not the first time I've heard them flaunting road regulations.

I really encourage people to safely and legally acquire photos of these guys working where they shouldn't and report them. We have a duty of care to them as much as they have a duty of care to us as motorists.

Mycroft H

landyman wrote: »

Lads I went past one of the 'safety' speed cameras late last night at 83-84Kph (accord. to gps) in a 80kph zone. It didn't flash, but I'm going to presume there fitted with infra red cameras and may not need to flash.

Whats the chances I've been caught?


And I'm just curious, whats the go safe vans range especially in heavy rain like last night


Van located on the Clane/Kilcock road.

http://goo.gl/3E7Xj

Just an update

A fortnight and more on, and still no letter in the post. I hopefully reckon that I got away with it.


*now awaits the flap of the letterbox*

michael999999

landyman wrote: »

Just an update

A fortnight and more on, and still no letter in the post. I hopefully reckon that I got away with it.


*now awaits the flap of the letterbox*

There is probably 5-7kph leeway over the limit!

Mycroft H

michael999999 wrote: »

There is probably 5-7kph leeway over the limit!

Apparently not with these new go safe vans. More like 2-3k over

What i think saved me was the torrential downpour at the time

ironclaw

michael999999 wrote: »

There is probably 5-7kph leeway over the limit!

Once again I'll point out these vans are accurate to about ±1km/h. Your car speedo will always over read. So even if you were doing 82km/h (By their radar) you'd probably be showing 85km/h or more on your speedo i.e. You would know you were speeding and hence be a legitimate speeder.

I'd imagine if there was a leeway, it would be at most 3km/h to account for any inaccuracy in their reading, so a solicitor couldn't argue their accuracy could mean you were doing exactly 80km/h when they read you at 82km/h (i.e. 83 km/h would allow for a ±2km/h inaccuracy) I'm pretty sure accuracy can't be contested in court under Irish law regardless

I'd imagine landyman the rain saved you.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

The location is on the Dunmore Road into Waterford, just after the Creamery going into Waterford City. Pretty good road, 80 km/h for most of it once your out of Waterford City. To my knowledge this particular section isn't an accident black spot.

So what I'm asking is for the Speed Camera defenders to defend this.

A camera van, in pitch darkness, late at night, on a blind corner, parked in a private gateway opposite continuous hatched double lines.

This corner is exceptionally blind in my opinion (The Google street view doesn't do it justice as its about 10 ft above a normal drivers eye line) and to have a van creating a pinch point if an on coming car went wide is frightening.

The double hatched lines also make it illegal by the Rules of the Road.

So speed camera defenders, defend the indefensible.

Your photos are meticulously prepared and well presented. Not so sure about your arguments though.

First up, if you think GoSafe have a genuine case to answer you should challenge them in writing with the same evidence, IMO.

However, here are my thoughts FWIW.

I'd need more details of the location before I would accept that no fatalities have occurred in the vicinity (which is the justification given for the siting of these vans). This kind of claim has been made before and it was not difficult to find news reports of fatalities in some cases. Not remembering or knowing about such incidents is not the same as never happening.

Was the van parked partly or wholly on the road? If so, can you provide a photo showing clearly that this was the case?

If not, how was it creating a "pinch point", and how would the parking laws re continuous lines etc apply?

You may not like the parking location, but if it was (a) not illegal and (b) monitoring a stretch of road associated with fatalities in the past then it was not out of order, IMO.

Just my tuppence worth. However, I would like to know what AGS, GoSafe or the RSA have to say on the subject.

ironclaw

I'd need more details of the location before I would accept that no fatalities have occurred in the vicinity (which is the justification given for the siting of these vans). This kind of claim has been made before and it was not difficult to find news reports of fatalities in some cases. Not remembering or knowing about such incidents is not the same as never happening.

For the off set, I'm not arguing the location or reason. Regardless of fatalities or not, its not the basis of what I'm saying.

Was the van parked partly or wholly on the road? If so, can you provide a photo showing clearly that this was the case?

The van is just off the road in a private gate as per my post. I've slightly edited the white balance to show the margin. Regardless, its parked on a blind corner and opposite continuous lines which is against the rules of the road. If I parked my tractor trailer there I'd be pretty quickly told to move it.

If not, how was it creating a "pinch point", and how would the parking laws re continuous lines etc apply?

If a car, coming from Waterford, took the bend wide, it would be stopping an oncoming car from moving into the shoulder to avoid a collision. A pinch point. It also by its presence there forces drivers taking the corner to move to the right (Naturally to allow room etc), closer to oncoming traffic. And cars do come hard and wide at that location in both directions.

Again, regardless, you are not allowed park on a bend or corner. Or opposite continuous lines. Two offences rolled into one. Many people don't realise that you can receive a parking fine even if no yellow lines are present, parking opposite continuous lines is an offense. No if's or but's.

You may not like the parking location

Seems awful convenient that its at the end of a long straight and also off a fast corner. You could say its a perfect location for shooting fish. But we won't go there. Lets just stick with the facts, it was parked illegally I believe on two counts a) A corner and b) opposite continuous lines.

And even if it wasn't illegal, its a down right dangerous place to park a van. How many accidents happen on long straights vs corners? Nearly all accident black spots I've come across are corners. Why further endanger people by parking on them?

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

The van is just off the road in a private gate as per my post. I've slightly edited the white balance to show the margin. Regardless, its parked on a blind corner and opposite continuous lines which is against the rules of the road. If I parked my tractor trailer there I'd be pretty quickly told to move it.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5142/5651393776_a5a911d82b.jpg

If a car, coming from Waterford, took the bend wide, it would be stopping an oncoming car from moving into the shoulder to avoid a collision. A pinch point. It also by its presence there forces drivers taking the corner to move to the right (Naturally to allow room etc), closer to oncoming traffic. And cars do come hard and wide at that location in both directions.

Again, regardless, you are not allowed park on a bend or corner. Or opposite continuous lines. Two offences rolled into one. Many people don't realise that you can receive a parking fine even if no yellow lines are present, parking opposite continuous lines is an offense. No if's or but's.

Seems awful convenient that its at the end of a long straight and also off a fast corner. You could say its a perfect location for shooting fish. But we won't go there. Lets just stick with the facts, it was parked illegally I believe on two counts a) A corner and b) opposite continuous lines.

And even if it wasn't illegal, its a down right dangerous place to park a van. How many accidents happen on long straights vs corners? Nearly all accident black spots I've come across are corners. Why further endanger people by parking on them?

The photo above shows clearly that the GoSafe van is parked off the road. I'm no lawyer, or roads engineer, but IMO it's therefore not parked illegally. Double yellow lines, for example, relate to on-road parking.

If by "shoulder" you mean hard shoulder then clearly there is none at this location.

Now that I think of it, though, could the place where the van is parked be a grass margin as mentioned in the RoTR?

I think, however, that you may be answering your own questions to some extent. If cars do come "hard and wide" at that location, then maybe speed really is an issue? What is the posted limit? Why would cars be coming "hard and wide" at a sharp bend where there is a double continuous white line? Are they crossing the line illegally, and if so is it because they are driving at an excessive speed? And what do you mean by a "fast corner" in any case?

If the corner really is dangerous as you suggest, then the presence of a speed camera van will tend to slow traffic. Lower speed is inherently safer, so if the average speed at this location is lowered then the net effect would be to make it safer.

Again, just my personal thoughts on the specific incident you mention, but I would definitely suggest you raise the issue with the authorities if you think the situation warrants it.

Tragedy

Lower speed isn't inherently safer, accidents at lower speed tend to result in less fatalities.

There is a huge yawning chasm between those two concepts.

Sully

The van was outside of the marked area of the warning signs. Assume thats a fault of the council if the area the van was parked was in the "black zone" but are you not legally obliged to be informed in Ireland about camera locations?

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

Lower speed isn't inherently safer, accidents at lower speed tend to result in less fatalities.

There is a huge yawning chasm between those two concepts.

All other things being equal, the higher the speed the higher the risk of collision and the greater the severity of the collision if one does occur. That is a rock solid fact established over many years of road safety research.

The corollary of that equation is that lower speed is associated with lower risk and a lower level of crash severity, ie lower speed is safer than higher speed, all other things being equal.

Can you elaborate on that "huge yawning chasm" a bit, preferably with reference to established evidence? I don't understand the point you are making.

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

All other things being equal, the higher the speed the higher the risk of collision and the greater the severity of the collision if one does occur. That is a rock solid fact established over many years of road safety research.

The corollary of that equation is that lower speed is associated with lower risk and a lower level of crash severity, ie lower speed is safer than higher speed, all other things being equal.

Can you elaborate on that "huge yawning chasm" a bit, preferably with reference to established evidence? I don't understand the point you are making.

I highlighted the important part of your post. All other things being equal is never true for road accidents(or any other type of accident/death to the best of my knowledge), hence why posting something like "Lower speed is inherently safer, so if the average speed at this location is lowered then the net effect would be to make it safer." is nonsense.

You seem to be another lowering speeds = road safety proponent who doesn't really understand statistics

Chance of accident resulting in death
Is vastly different from
Chance of having an accident resulting in death.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend that, and probably don't want to either judging from your posts.

Pray tell, do you have some studies for us that shows how lowering speed limits on Motorways makes them safer? Perhaps one on the accident rate on the M50 when the speed limit was 120km/h versus since it changed to 100km/h?

Or are you just going to bull**** about "ceteris paribus"?

cococoady

ironclaw wrote: »

Is it just me or is this van parked outside the permitted area. Look at the sign just in front of the van.

slimjimmc

cococoady wrote: »

Is it just me or is this van parked outside the permitted area. Look at the sign just in front of the van.

You're assuming that sign indicates the start of the camera zone. There are often numerous camera signs along the length of a zone but not nearly as many as you tend to find with speed signs. Incidentally, I've yet to see any sign to indicate the end of a zone either.

ironclaw

cococoady wrote: »

Is it just me or is this van parked outside the permitted area. Look at the sign just in front of the van.

According to the map its well inside the zone. Those signs arn't like roadworks i.e. Start and End point. The signs can pretty much appear anywhere by the looks of it. Frankly I don't go by them anyway as the Garda vans can pop up anywhere else, so the signs are not a good marker to go by.

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

I highlighted the important part of your post. All other things being equal is never true for road accidents(or any other type of accident/death to the best of my knowledge), hence why posting something like "Lower speed is inherently safer, so if the average speed at this location is lowered then the net effect would be to make it safer." is nonsense.

You seem to be another lowering speeds = road safety proponent who doesn't really understand statistics

Chance of accident resulting in death
Is vastly different from
Chance of having an accident resulting in death.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend that, and probably don't want to either judging from your posts.

Pray tell, do you have some studies for us that shows how lowering speed limits on Motorways makes them safer? Perhaps one on the accident rate on the M50 when the speed limit was 120km/h versus since it changed to 100km/h?

Or are you just going to bull**** about "ceteris paribus"?

I used the phrase "other things being equal" for the benefit of those (including boardsies with third level qualifications in Applied Physics apparently) who are not au fait with the complexities of Google searches.

Since presumably you "really understand statistics" and you know the point you are trying to make, can you post (or PM) a link to an official publication that supports your position? If I don't really understand it I'm sure I can rely on you to explain it to me in appropriate Noddy-level language.

mcwhirter

The cameras aren't there to prevent speeding but to bring in much needed revenue, its as simple as that.

Each van has a certain quota for each day, if they were there to prevent speeding, they would be in operation 24 hours and not for a few hours as they are now.

Iwannahurl

mcwhirter wrote: »

The cameras aren't there to prevent speeding but to bring in much needed revenue, its as simple as that.

Each van has a certain quota for each day, if they were there to prevent speeding, they would be in operation 24 hours and not for a few hours as they are now.

Any idea what their quotas are? Are the quotas secret? Or maybe they were published somewhere, in which case please post the link.

Sully

There is no quota, according to the Gardai and NRA.

Found this email response on a Facebook group, may be of interest to folk here;

Any Go Safe privatised Safety Cameras carrying out enforcement
operations will be marked and will be within the zones referred to on
the Garda Website.

Any unmarked safety camera vans (which are in a variety of colours) are
carrying out traffic surveys or staff training not enforcement and may
be outside of the zones. Marked vans observed outside of the zones are
being utilised for training and / or traffic surveys. There are no
notices issued for any alleged offences captured during training
excercises.

Garda speed camera vans (ROBOT) may be utilised outside of the zones for
speed enforcement according to local requirements and may be marked or
unmarked

Tragedy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I used the phrase "other things being equal" for the benefit of those (including boardsies with third level qualifications in Applied Physics apparently) who are not au fait with the complexities of Google searches.

Since presumably you "really understand statistics" and you know the point you are trying to make, can you post (or PM) a link to an official publication that supports your position? If I don't really understand it I'm sure I can rely on you to explain it to me in appropriate Noddy-level language.

Flying is a safer way to travel than driving. According to what you said, this is an impossibility as "lower speed is inherently safer".

Motorways are safer to drive on than lower speed roads. According to you, this is another impossibility as "lower speed is inherently safer".

QED you're another "speeding kills always" person misusing statistics you don't understand

Iwannahurl

Tragedy wrote: »

Flying is a safer way to travel than driving. According to what you said, this is an impossibility as "lower speed is inherently safer".

Motorways are safer to drive on than lower speed roads. According to you, this is another impossibility as "lower speed is inherently safer".

QED you're another "speeding kills always" person misusing statistics you don't understand

I'd give you an F for effort.

trellheim

Mespil Rd, just beside Sussex terrace eastbound side; unmarked van flashing oncoming traffic and causing a near crash as people slam on the anchors as they've just got going after the leeson st lights.

Iwannahurl

trellheim wrote: »

Mespil Rd, just beside Sussex terrace eastbound side; unmarked van flashing oncoming traffic and causing a near crash as people slam on the anchors as they've just got going after the leeson st lights.

So many bad drivers in this country. Will they ever learn?

ironclaw

Tragedy wrote: »

Flying is a safer way to travel than driving. According to what you said, this is an impossibility as "lower speed is inherently safer".

Motorways are safer to drive on than lower speed roads. According to you, this is another impossibility as "lower speed is inherently safer".

QED you're another "speeding kills always" person misusing statistics you don't understand

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'd give you an F for effort.

Can I ask why? Every time you post you bombard us with stats, figures and numbers. But the base argument is the same, Speed = Crash = Death. By your very argument, motorways should have more deaths on them than other roads. Which just isn't the case.


While we're on the topic of this:

All other things being equal, the higher the speed the higher the risk of collision and the greater the severity of the collision if one does occur. That is a rock solid fact established over many years of road safety research.

Then explain this:

http://www.wreckedexotics.com/zonda/zonda_20110217_2.shtml

A 199 MPH crash (World record I believe) and all walked away. That site is littered with high speed crashes in exotic cars, and while there are fatalities, a surprising number walk away.

By your stats and "rock solid fact" they should all be dead. No questions.

Stats and figures can be used til the cows come home but the fact is these cameras are out on our roads making money, not saving lives. 60% increase in speeding fines, don't tell me the country suddenly got faster. This tied with a negligible difference in road fatalities, I can't find the link but I believe in the last quarter they are up.

Iwannahurl

ironclaw wrote: »

Can I ask why? Every time you post you bombard us with stats, figures and numbers. But the base argument is the same, Speed = Crash = Death. By your very argument, motorways should have more deaths on them than other roads. Which just isn't the case.

Then explain this:

http://www.wreckedexotics.com/zonda/zonda_20110217_2.shtml

A 199 MPH crash (World record I believe) and all walked away. That site is littered with high speed crashes in exotic cars, and while there are fatalities, a surprising number walk away.

By your stats and "rock solid fact" they should all be dead. No questions.

Stats and figures can be used til the cows come home but the fact is these cameras are out on our roads making money, not saving lives. 60% increase in speeding fines, don't tell me the country suddenly got faster. This tied with a negligible difference in road fatalities, I can't find the link but I believe in the last quarter they are up.

I dealt at length with the evidence about fifty pages ago, and I don't propose to go over it again (not least because a Mod or two might disapprove). The evidence I referred to concerns risk, probabilities and causal relationships, and is much more nuanced than you suggest.

I rely on evidence in discussions of this kind because once the science genie is out of the bottle there is no going back.

Statements such as "the fact is these cameras are out on our roads making money, not saving lives" are just tittle-tattle and subjective personal opinion, and no amount of evidence regarding the risks associated with excessive speed or regarding the benefits of effective speed surveillance is likely to change such attitudes.

That's immaterial though, because the reality is that speed surveillance in Ireland has just been seriously escalated, hence all the complaining and the increase in speeding fines. It will take time for the culture to change, and even if and when it does there will always be a significant proportion of the motoring population that will continue to break the speed limit. That is still the case in the Netherlands, for example, where the level of speed surveillance has been much higher than ours for a long time.

Frankly m'lud I don't give a damn whether the ker-ching of government cash registers filling up with speeding fines is heard into perpetuity. If the speed/safety camera programme is implemented properly, if an optimum level of surveillance is maintained permanently, if average speeds are lowered appropriately in key locations, and if there is a significant improvement in social attitudes and behaviour on our roads, then I would anticipate a gradual decrease in road casualties over time.

Speed is a very important factor in road crashes, but it is not the only factor. Therefore even 100% effective speed surveillance won't eliminate all road deaths and serious injuries. However, allowing for imperfections in the programme, I would hope and expect that in time there will be a noticeable decrease in road deaths.

That's a worthwhile objective for all sorts of reasons. Over ten years ago the economist Peter Bacon calculated that the total economic cost of all road deaths in 1989 was £795 million (punts). Road deaths have decreased since then but costs must have risen substantially. The economic cost per road death was recently cited as being in the order of €3 million. Do the math, as they say in the States. I don't know what the capital and current costs of the GoSafe programme are, but if the annual road toll is reduced even marginally then the net benefit to the State ought to be obvious. That's just looking at it in cold economic terms; there are other benefits to individuals, communities and society as a whole that are harder to quantify but are every bit as important. Life and health cannot be exchanged for other benefits in society.

With regard to amazing stories of survivors emerging relatively unscathed from exotic wrecks, perhaps the best that can be said of them is that they are the exceptions that prove the rule. I can't imagine any authorities anywhere in the world basing their road safety strategies on such occurrences.

There are similar stories from the world of flying (and falling). I doubt that the International Civil Aviation Organization develops its air safety programmes with reference to such stories.

Maybe there's a fundamental truth here though. For some people, being presented with evidence regarding risk on the road is to be bombarded with stats, figures and numbers. Stories of survival against the odds are much more compelling. Who wants to be an everyday statistic when you could be a wrecked exotic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QldZiR9eQ_0

.

Shane732

As Jeremy Clarkson once said - speed doesn't kill, it's coming to an abrupt stop that causes trouble!

cococoady

Sully wrote: »

Any Go Safe privatised Safety Cameras carrying out enforcement
operations will be marked and will be within the zones referred to on
the Garda Website.

Any unmarked safety camera vans (which are in a variety of colours) are
carrying out traffic surveys or staff training not enforcement and may
be outside of the zones. Marked vans observed outside of the zones are
being utilised for training and / or traffic surveys. There are no
notices issued for any alleged offences captured during training
excercises.

Garda speed camera vans (ROBOT) may be utilised outside of the zones for
speed enforcement according to local requirements and may be marked or
unmarked QUOTE]

More like they are trying to find out where the best places are to catch people speeding.
If it was for training as they say, why couldn't they train inside their permitted areas

Marlow

Blue GoSafe van in the 60 km/h zone on the N80 outside of Mountmellick (towards Tullamore) around 2pm today.

/M

pippip

Plain White van 08

Tuesday May 5th 10:30pm, east wall road (on path opposite the pizza place) rear of the van pointing towards docks.

Irish Fire

pippip wrote: »

Plain White van 08

Tuesday May 5th 10:30pm, east wall road (on path opposite the pizza place) rear of the van pointing towards docks.

AGS still have a few with magnetic signs