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

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Why draw the line at road deaths? How about life-changing serious injuries? To, meet with your approval of law enforcement measures, could we agree a conversion rate of, say 5 serious injuries to the road death? Or could we measure it some other way?

Safety cameras will be in operation from mid November 2010 at locations across Irish roads. These locations have been identified as having a history of speed related death and injury.

I'm not aware of these locations having such history.

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

... I know where I can safely put the foot down...

To clarify, by "safely" you mean safe from detection? :rolleyes:

Reg'stoy

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, I see speed cameras parked coming into Limerick from Shannon on the N18, just before the Caherdavin Exit and going back out on the N18/E20, coming from Shannon Bridge, just before the Coonagh roundabout.
I am very reasonable, if someone can post me evidence that anyone has been killed there, I will gladly concede the argument and from now on speak only in favour of speed cameras.

If you do an overlay of the Garda website map of the gosafe van locations and the RSA map of road collisions locations you will see that there have been two fatal accidents on the N18/E20 from Shannon Bridge (is it the actual bridge over the Shannon, I'm not local) and the Coonagh roundabout if thats the actual road your talking about. Granted the location of the gosafe van enforcement area does not seem to overlay exactly but it would seem to be only 200 metres in the difference in one case.

There also have been two fatal road accidents on the N18 before the Limerick south ring road where a camera zone location is and two serious accidents as in serious injuries heading into limerick just before the Coonagh roundabout.

I apologise in advance if these are not the locations you are talking about, but an overlay of these two maps does show locations of accidents since 2005 and gosafe camera locations if people want to compare them.

dr.fuzzenstein

Reg'stoy wrote: »

If you do an overlay of the Garda website map of the gosafe van locations and the RSA map of road collisions locations you will see that there have been two fatal accidents on the N18/E20 from Shannon Bridge (is it the actual bridge over the Shannon, I'm not local) and the Coonagh roundabout if thats the actual road your talking about. Granted the location of the gosafe van enforcement area does not seem to overlay exactly but it would seem to be only 200 metres in the difference in one case.

There also have been two fatal road accidents on the N18 before the Limerick south ring road where a camera zone location is and two serious accidents as in serious injuries heading into limerick just before the Coonagh roundabout.

I apologise in advance if these are not the locations you are talking about, but an overlay of these two maps does show locations of accidents since 2005 and gosafe camera locations if people want to compare them.

No argument there then.
(No really, I'm serious, hope this works out)

pa990

d-don wrote: »

well the garda layed out the rules and it shows on their website.. i'll be happy to play it in court .. even if she was speeding based on the GARDA website...:D law n all that lark

well, whats the update, are you still going to court or has the ticket been paid?

JamesBond2010

Reg'stoy wrote: »

There also have been two fatal road accidents on the N18 before the Limerick south ring road where a camera zone location is and two serious accidents as in serious injuries heading into limerick just before the Coonagh roundabout.

not Arguing but. where the gosafe van is on the way into limerick from Shannon before the caherdavin exit & the B&b. the house on the Left there has never been any accidents or fatilities around there.

cyclopath2001

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

van is on the way into limerick from Shannon before the caherdavin exit & the B&b. the house on the Left there has never been any accidents or fatilities around there.

Do people travel in excess of the legally permitted speed there?

JamesBond2010

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Do people travel in excess of the legally permitted speed there?

They are more or less slowing down around there getting into lane. For the exit or rhe Tunnel

bcmf

Looks like the Garda were trying to fill their qouta today at the slip road (M1) from the M1 to Dublin airport at about 2pm. Sitting in the hard shoulder with the gun and pulling people in.
Would have been better served ,IMO, checking speed on the M1 where 2 crashes happened within 24hrs at the same spot less then 2 km away instead of shooting fish in a barrel.

cyclopath2001

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

They are more or less slowing down around there getting into lane. For the exit or rhe Tunnel

With some drivers slowing to adhere to the limit and others coming up behind them at over the limit (as I've often seen on slip roads), it's understandable that a bit of compliance enforcement would be justified.

L1011

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Are you saying that their location is accidental as a result of old or incorrect data, and the money generated is a happy coincidence. Or are you saying that a member of the Gardai or a civil servant having appraised locations has decided on their location based on the likelihood of catching motorists in excess of the posted limits for reasons other than publicly stated.

That their positioning is the result of incredibly outdated data, data that nobody is concerned to fix due to the revenue stream. Even if this makes the "where people have died" part of their advertising a lie.

The rest of your post is incoherent gibberish.

Reg'stoy

bcmf wrote: »

Looks like the Garda were trying to fill their qouta today at the slip road (M1) from the M1 to Dublin airport at about 2pm. Sitting in the hard shoulder with the gun and pulling people in.
Would have been better served ,IMO, checking speed on the M1 where 2 crashes happened within 24hrs at the same spot less then 2 km away instead of shooting fish in a barrel.

Have no problem with a speed check there as you need people slowed down, it's 80kph coming down from 100kph so not exactly slow. Once you pass that slip road you have cars joining from the airport, cars trying to exit to the M50, cars moving across 3 lanes of traffic. If Irish drivers got into the correct lane and didn't cross chevrons or keep right hoping to avoid queues; I might agree with you.

Every morning I see cars crossing the chevrons or staying in the centre or right hand lane till the last moment before cutting across traffic to exit for the M50. So a couple of points might cop them on.

Reg'stoy

MYOB wrote: »

That their positioning is the result of incredibly outdated data, data that nobody is concerned to fix due to the revenue stream. Even if this makes the "where people have died" part of their advertising a lie.

The rest of your post is incoherent gibberish.

Have a look at my post above in reply to dr.fuzzenstein (it's actually on the same page as your post) and then get back on to me there sport .

L1011

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Have a look at my post above in reply to dr.fuzzenstein (it's actually on the same page as your post) and then get back on to me there sport .

Someone who rants on about the concept of conspiracy theories is identical to me as someone who posts them.

That the cameras are not being placed where they claim they are is plain to see. There's no conspiracy there.

cyclopath2001

MYOB wrote: »

That their positioning is the result of incredibly outdated data, data that nobody is concerned to fix due to the revenue stream.

If people are breaking the law at those locations, then, the cameras are correctly deployed.

You make it sound like people who break speed limits and are punished for it are victims rather than offenders. This is wrong.

Reg'stoy

MYOB wrote: »

Someone who rants on about the concept of conspiracy theories is identical to me as someone who posts them.

That the cameras are not being placed where they claim they are is plain to see. There's no conspiracy there.

Would you care to provide proof, if it's plain to see that shouldn't be too hard. Or rather still, provide the proof to an ambulance chasing solicitor and ask him to persue the case; as I have yet to see where a speeding fine was overturned do to a camera vans location being incorrect.

In as much as a previous poster accepted the links I provided. I am willing to accept proof of a conserted effort on the part of the authorities to place privately operated camera vans in locations other than as laid down on the Garda website. Anecdotal evidence I'm afraid, will not suffice.

As for my references to conspiracy theories, that was a little known concept called sarcasm.

p.s.
To say that the cameras are not been placed where thay are saying they are placing them sounds like a conspi......... oops damn you sarcasm, damn you to hell.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

If people are breaking the law at those locations, then, the cameras are correctly deployed.

You make it sound like people who break speed limits and are punished for it are victims rather than offenders. This is wrong.

The cameras are claimed to be at locations where "people have died". They aren't. Hence they are not correctly deployed.

You have previously refused to condemn cyclists who break traffic laws and have also condoned extremely dangerous driving ("brake testing" other drivers). If you're not whither than white you may as well stop pretending to be.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Would you care to provide proof, if it's plain to see that shouldn't be too hard. Or rather still, provide the proof to an ambulance chasing solicitor and ask him to persue the case; as I have yet to see where a speeding fine was overturned do to a camera vans location being incorrect.

GoSafe are putting the vans where they're told to, and the RSA/AGS can tell them wherever they want, once they're not motorways. There is nothing for a solicitor to overturn.

Its just that they are either being incredibly ignorant or downright lying about why the locations are picked.

I'm not going to engage with you again until you stop mentioning "conspiracy theories". Its not sarcasm, it makes you look you're attempting to evade the issue.

Seth Brundle

MYOB wrote: »

The cameras are claimed to be at locations where "people have died". They aren't. Hence they are not correctly deployed.

Read between the lines:
from garda.ie
"Safety cameras will be on the roads all across Ireland where fatal collisions are happening as a result of inappropriate speed." No use of the word "only" to refer to the roads checked. (strange use of present tense)

"An extensive analysis of collisions on the road network where speed was a contributory factor has been completed.

The following sections of road, as set out on the map, were identified as having a significant proportion of collisions whereby, in the opinion of the investigating Garda, a safe speed was exceeded.

Ongoing surveys will be conducted to ensure that these sections of roads continue to represent locations where speeding is happening. The map will be updated accordingly."Again no suggestion that these would be the only roads checked.

I would draw your attention to the second paragraph which I interpret as being collisions whereby the speed at impact may have been less that the speed limit.

Lastly, don't forget that Garda talivans can go on any public road in the RoI that they see fit.

L1011

kbannon wrote: »

Read between the lines:
from garda.ie
"Safety cameras will be on the roads all across Ireland where fatal collisions are happening as a result of inappropriate speed." No use of the word "only" to refer to the roads checked. (strange use of present tense)

"An extensive analysis of collisions on the road network where speed was a contributory factor has been completed.

The following sections of road, as set out on the map, were identified as having a significant proportion of collisions whereby, in the opinion of the investigating Garda, a safe speed was exceeded.

Ongoing surveys will be conducted to ensure that these sections of roads continue to represent locations where speeding is happening. The map will be updated accordingly."Again no suggestion that these would be the only roads checked.

I would draw your attention to the second paragraph which I interpret as being collisions whereby the speed at impact may have been less that the speed limit.

Lastly, don't forget that Garda talivans can go on any public road in the RoI that they see fit.

I've never mentioned the Garda tailvans or the survey units.

There is no suggestion that there would be anything else checked - you're the one reading things in to text that isn't actually there.

Your interpretation is also irrelevant, as I've never mentioned ANYTHING to do with fatalities/collisions being speed related - only that the data they use to justify many sites refers to roads that either no longer exist in the form they did when the incidents happened, or an entirely different road (the R/L road left after the N road gets replaced).

Why are people acting as if I've said things I haven't? Strawman central. The fact is that a huge number of the GoSafe locations are chosen or justified on wildly inaccurate data. And yes, I am able to tell the difference between a Garda unit, a GoSafe survey unit and an GoSafe enforcement unit.

Seth Brundle

I never said that you said anything.
I'm pointing out that they said that they will be on the roads where fatalities occurred but they also didn't say that they wouldn't be elsewhere. In other words, based on the blurb on garda.ie, the vans could potentially be pretty much anywhere.

L1011

kbannon wrote: »

I never said that you said anything.
I'm pointing out that they said that they will be on the roads where fatalities occurred but they also didn't say that they wouldn't be elsewhere. In other words, based on the blurb on garda.ie, the vans could potentially be pretty much anywhere.

I don't take a specific "will" with *no other data* as being anything other than a specification of, erm, where something will be.

You're reading vast amounts of missing data in to a very short statement that fundamentally changes it.

bcmf

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Have no problem with a speed check there as you need people slowed down, it's 80kph coming down from 100kph so not exactly slow. Once you pass that slip road you have cars joining from the airport, cars trying to exit to the M50, cars moving across 3 lanes of traffic. If Irish drivers got into the correct lane and didn't cross chevrons or keep right hoping to avoid queues; I might agree with you.

Every morning I see cars crossing the chevrons or staying in the centre or right hand lane till the last moment before cutting across traffic to exit for the M50. So a couple of points might cop them on.

I think you may have the wrong slip road. It was the road leading to the airport from the M1. You have a roundabout with traffic lights to slow the traffic with an additional slip road for the old swords road.
My point was that in the last 18 hrs there was AFAIK 2 crashes just before jctn 3 where that chaotic 3 lane system is in place (the exit for Airside) surely if safety was a priority they would be operating there and trying to put manners on motorists (as you pointed out).
But sitting on a hard shoulder just off a bend on a mway is just shooting fish in a barrel.
Just saying :rolleyes:

Reg'stoy

bcmf wrote: »

I think you may have the wrong slip road. It was the road leading to the airport from the M1. You have a roundabout with traffic lights to slow the traffic with an additional slip road for the old swords road.
My point was that in the last 18 hrs there was AFAIK 2 crashes just before jctn 3 where that chaotic 3 lane system is in place (the exit for Airside) surely if safety was a priority they would be operating there and trying to put manners on motorists (as you pointed out).
But sitting on a hard shoulder just off a bend on a mway is just shooting fish in a barrel.
Just saying :rolleyes:

Oops my bad , I was thinking of the southbound side. Yeah the spot your talking off at the airside exit is a nightmare alright, but they're supposed to be (how long is a piece of string) extending that 3rd lane to the Rush/Lusk exit soon.

Reg'stoy

MYOB wrote: »

The cameras are claimed to be at locations where "people have died". They aren't. Hence they are not correctly deployed..........

I'm not going to engage with you again until you stop mentioning "conspiracy theories". Its not sarcasm, it makes you look you're attempting to evade the issue.

Quote directly from the Garda website

How will the locations be decided? Who is responsible for deciding the locations?

An Garda Síochána has completed an extensive analysis of the collision history on the road network. Sections of road have been identified where a significant proportion of collisions occurred where speed was a contributory factor. The Garda National Traffic Bureau (GNTB) will decide on the locations where the speed cameras will operate.

No mention of Deaths there, Kbannon got there first but it needs saying again

Quote directly from the RSA website

These locations have been identified as having a history of speed related death and injury.

I do see death mentioned but I also see injury.

Now, how by providing links or direct quotes to stand over my stance am I evading the issue. If the issue is their locations, I have provided a link to the RSA document showing road collisions since 2005 and also provided a link to the Garda map of go-safe inforcement areas and suggested that people compare them by over lapping locations. If upon comparing the locations that there has been no serious collision or outdated roads as you said above, then I'm willing to accept that.

The fact that you say that they are placed on the wrong roads would be very easy to prove. The fine you get in the post gives the location of the offence, simply compare this to the Garda map on the website. If the road is not down as a go-safe location well, judges have thrown out speeding fines for less.

All I have ever said is; I don't believe that go-safe cameras are revenue generators based on my viewing of the available evidence. You obviously hold the opposite view, yet fail to provide your own links.

To say that go-safe vans were only meant to be placed where

MYOB wrote: »

"people have died"

(I take it that is what you mean) as proof that they are at the wrong locations is a misnomer. To the best of my recollection, that is neither the stated position of the Gardai or the RSA; and by that position I mean camera vans placed only where some one has died as a result of an accident.

Now I will be fair and also quote the below from the Garda website

Excessive or inappropriate speeding is a major factor in road traffic collisions. Safety cameras will be on the roads all across Ireland where fatal collisions are happening as a result of inappropriate speed.

But it does not say only on those roads as mentioned by Kbannon also. People continually claim that these go-safe cameras are revenue generators based on nothing other than .....well I have yet to see any proof.

SeanW

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

If people are breaking the law at those locations, then, the cameras are correctly deployed.

You make it sound like people who break speed limits and are punished for it are victims rather than offenders. This is wrong.

I wonder if you feel the same way about cyclists who cycle on footpaths, run red lights ...

L1011

Reg'stoy wrote: »

No mention of Deaths there, Kbannon got there first but it needs saying again

An irrelevance where the stats for injury refer to the same upgraded or replaced roads.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I do see death mentioned but I also see injury.

And again.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

But it does not say only on those roads as mentioned by Kbannon also.

And you are also reading content that is not. Nowhere, at all, does it say cameras "will" be anywhere else. Both you and kbannon need to stop trying to redefine the English language.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue here at this point. Walls of text and none of it dealing with the issue that the RSA is either downright lying or very stupid. Listen to any of their advertising and not quotes off their website (more evasion).

2005 is a generation ago in terms of Irish roads. Collision data from the early part of that period has been used to determine placing of cameras on roads which have been upgraded or completely replaced. In many cases the road that had the collisions still exists, but they aren't going to place a camera where there might be 10 cars an hour.


I have provided examples earlier in this thread of cases where a rural GoSafe location - frequently used - has been placed on a new build, extremely wide and still relatively low trafficked road where all the data refers to the winding back road it replaced; and an urban location (which I've never seen used) where the single fatality was long enough ago that I believe its actually out of the period they're meant to be using for statistics and since then there's been two pedestrian crossings, speed ramps and extensive barriers installed.

One is on the wrong road, the other is somewhere where to speed you'd need to cause damage to your car.

If I went through the entire list I suspect 70%+ of the roads have been upgraded, bypassed or replaced since the start of the stats period.

Some of the remaining 30%+ are locations where the camera van is only ever placed on a long-standing improved section of road, e.g. the N53 outside Dundalk where the "zone" covers a long, straight but extremely up and down section of road which often has head-on collisions; but the van is only ever at the far end of the zone which is wide and flat.

Others are aspirational ones where there is actually nowhere safe to park a van and they're hoping for a placebo effect from the signs.

cyclopath2001

SeanW wrote: »

I wonder if you feel the same way about cyclists who cycle on footpaths, run red lights ...

Only in 'motors' do you find so many people trying to say that laws should not be enforced.

monument

If you want to talk about cyclists... Does this death before enforcement requirement a few of you have apply to cyclists too, or just motorists for some reason?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

SeanW wrote: »

I wonder if you feel the same way about cyclists who cycle on footpaths, run red lights ...

Only in 'motors' do you find so many people trying to say that laws should not be enforced.

Not sure on that.

There are quite a few cyclists willing to defend breaking the law, but the important thing is that there is a very clear consensus on the cycling board that red lights should be stopped for, you should not cycle on the footpath, and you should uses lights.

Even more people over there will agree that if you're caught you're fair game. There's a hardcore everywhere who defends lawbreaking, but motorists here seem to think there's noting wrong with speeding and the enforcment of the limit is perverse unless somebody has died on the road. This is bloody strange, regardless of what has been said in a press release or statement or website.

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Only in 'motors' do you find so many people trying to say that laws should not be enforced.

That's evading the question.

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Only in 'motors' do you find so many people trying to say that laws should not be enforced.

That's evading the question.
And what the hell are you doing in motors anyway, since you're obviously a car-hating cyclist?

---

> Cycling forum, on yer bike!