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

npr240

Hi,

Does anybody know anything about the "speed detection" that appears to be operating in the Dublin Port Tunnel? It appears that there are two sets of electronic signs in the northbound tunnel which flash the car's speed and registration number. There also appears to be one in the southbound tunnel. Are people being prosecuted for this? There was an article in The Irish Times last January stating that the tendering process for tunnel speed cameras had been abandoned. Anybody heard anything since?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2011/0126/1224288311603.html

Seth Brundle

Well I haven't been caught yet!

Our man in Havana

I doubt the evidence is admissible in a court.

ironclaw

npr240 wrote: »

Hi,

Does anybody know anything about the "speed detection" that appears to be operating in the Dublin Port Tunnel? It appears that there are two sets of electronic signs in the northbound tunnel which flash the car's speed and registration number. There also appears to be one in the southbound tunnel. Are people being prosecuted for this? There was an article in The Irish Times last January stating that the tendering process for tunnel speed cameras had been abandoned. Anybody heard anything since?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2011/0126/1224288311603.html

When you say "flash" you mean puts up on a billboard display? No, I'd be with Havana and say its just an advisory system. However it would be fairly easy to implement a SPECS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECS_(speed_camera)) system or like in Portugal a "toll booth to toll booth" system (i.e. If you get between two toll booths in less than the allocated time for the speed of a section of road)

cyclopath2001

Our man in Havana wrote: »

I doubt the evidence is admissible in a court.

One solution to this problem would be for the tunnel operators to ban drivers who use the tunnel unsafely?

npr240

ironclaw wrote: »

When you say "flash" you mean puts up on a billboard display? No, I'd be with Havana and say its just an advisory system. However it would be fairly easy to implement a SPECS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECS_(speed_camera)) system or like in Portugal a "toll booth to toll booth" system (i.e. If you get between two toll booths in less than the allocated time for the speed of a section of road)

Yea it appears on one of the variable speed signs in the tunnel. Instead of the speed limit being displayed, the speed of the car and the car's registration plate are displayed on the sign. A SPECS system would be easy to implement, but it would appear from the Irish Times article in January 2011 that the tender for a speed camera system was pulled due to concerns about the NRA's statutory powers.

-Chris-

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

One solution to this problem would be for the tunnel operators to ban drivers who use the tunnel unsafely?

How does that address his point at all?

How would you propose to implement this ban?

How would you define unsafely, and what would you use as evidence (if OMIH is correct)?

What are you talking about?

cyclopath2001

-Chris- wrote: »

How does that address his point at all?

How would you propose to implement this ban?

How would you define unsafely, and what would you use as evidence (if OMIH is correct)?

What are you talking about?

We're discussing speeding in the port tunnel. It's featured in an Irish Times article?

We can certainly define unsafe as driving above the posted speed limit. Camera evidence of other undesirable behaviour could also be brought to bear.

Absent Garda speed cameras, other means could be used to detect speed infractions, for example, time based methods. You then make it a T&C of using the tunnel that if you go too fast, you won' be allowed use it in future and if there is an infraction it becomes a civil matter. Sanctions could be executed by denying credit.

Work with me on this Chris, there is dangerous driving in the port tunnel and we need to find a way to stop it. Please avoid negativity, where there's a will, there's a way.

SeanW

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

We can certainly define unsafe as driving above the posted speed limit.

Only if you have a "Tunnel vision" :cool: absolute view that it is always dangerous to travel above any speed limit, ever.

Like 50kph speed limits on HQDCs for example.

Speeding is not like theft and murder, crimes that always have a victim.

Only someone who has an unhealthy obsession with the topic could claim that "we can certainly define unsafe as driving above the posted speed limit" and assume that it always applies, in absolutely 100% of all cases.

SeanW

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Work with me on this Chris

The only reason anyone should "work with you" is to help you figure out why you're so singularly obsessed with this as opposed to real crimes like littering, vandalism, hooliganism, theft, murder, fraud, drug dealing etc.

cyclopath2001

SeanW wrote: »

Speeding is not like theft and murder, crimes that always have a victim.

Speeding is not a victimless crime.

Putting people in danger is wrong. Even if speeding does not result in a collision, it intimidates the vulnerable and encourages others to do the same. People who who break safety laws need early intervention and correction before they proceed to more serious forms of offending.

If you read the Irish Times article, you will see that I am not the only person in this country concerned with safety on the roads.

SeanW

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Speeding is not a victimless crime.

Putting people in danger is wrong. Even if speeding does not result in a collision, it intimidates the vulnerable and encourages others to do the same. People who who break safety laws need early intervention and correction before they proceed to more serious forms of offending.

If you read the Irish Tines article, you will see that I am not the only person in this country concerned with safety on the roads.

I never said speeding was always a victimless crime, nor did I berate you for reasonable concern about road safety.

What I find troubling is your ABSOLUTE view of speed limits. Most speed limits are indeed good guides to safe driving. By this I mean 50kph limits and some 30kph limits in most urban areas, some 60kph limits, as well as the 80, 100 and 120kph limits that generally apply to R, N and M roads respectively. Many however are ridiculous and can be broken with no safety penalty, sometimes by a factor by 100% and in one extreme case, more than that.

Speeding is a victimless crime in these cases. Like HQDCs with 50kph limits, or in an extreme case, a grade separated junction on a dual carriageway mainline with a 30kph speed limit ... where is the victim?

Again, I am not challenging reasonable concern for road safety or common sense views of speed limits, e.g. low speeds in urban areas and accident blackspots, sensible cruising limits (80, 100 and 120) kph on non-urban non-blackspot roads.

What I am challenging is your obsessive position that travelling above the speed limit is always bad and that posted speed limits are always 100% absolute guides to safe driving and that anyone who breaks any limit any time, any place must be hunted down and made PAY! in all cases.

ironclaw

I'm going to throw a spanner in the works on this...

The tunnel is protected at one end by a barrier and for a fee the public are allowed use the tunnel. As such does the tunnel fall under a private road & place? As such do the Gardai have authority in the tunnel in matters such as speed and road traffic act?

I'm not trying to set up a legal defense or claim its one, just interested seeing as it could be viewed as a private road / place given if they closed the barriers for one 24 period per year (or whatever the statue is) i.e. Maintained a right of way.

dr.fuzzenstein

Give it up, arguing with Cyclopath is like wrestling a mattress.
Pointless, exhausting and unwinnable, if half the people in this country had half his energy and conviction, I would have left or burnt the place down long ago!;) (no offence, I am simply awestruck, should you ever put your mind to the debt crisis, we should be out of this jam in a jiffy!)
In any way, there will always be people whose view of any rule is absolute and incontrovertible, thankfully these people are a small minority (since it would probably cause millions of deaths on the planet if everyone was like that) and one can only hope that for the majority common sense rules, i.e. no rule can ever be absolute, after all the rules are there to serve us, once the rules become more important than the people, the system is rotten and must be replaced.
So, driving on an empty motorway at 140 km/h is safe all day long, but remember:
When you're caught, you're caught.
Still zero points.

Seth Brundle

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

We're discussing speeding in the port tunnel. It's featured in an Irish Times article?

You make it sound like the article in the Irish Times is core to your argument?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

We can certainly define unsafe as driving above the posted speed limit.

No we can't!
It is quite reasonable for believe that someone driving under the speed limit could also be driving dangerously.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Camera evidence of other undesirable behaviour could also be brought to bear.

How will a camera capture someone driving drunk, for example?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Work with me on this Chris, there is dangerous driving in the port tunnel and we need to find a way to stop it. Please avoid negativity, where there's a will, there's a way.

Driving over the speed limit or driving dangerously? Don't assume the two are the same.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Speeding is not a victimless crime.

Oh Christ! :rolleyes:

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

People who who break safety laws need early intervention and correction before they proceed to more serious forms of offending.

I speed all the time. I've never raped or murdered anyone. Do you think that may change soon?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

If you read the Irish Times article, you will see that I am not the only person in this country concerned with safety on the roads.

I don't care who else thinks something - it doesn't automatically mean that you both are right.

Bif

Folks,
Can you please tell me what is the lowest speed you (personally, not a story you heard) were done for speeding in a 100kph speed camera zone E.g 101, 102, 103, 104kph? I am trying to find out what the tolerance is on the private speed cameras? Thanks!

ironclaw

Bif wrote: »

Folks,
Can you please tell me what is the lowest speed you (personally, not a story you heard) were done for speeding in a 100kph speed camera zone E.g 101, 102, 103, 104kph? I am trying to find out what the tolerance is on the private speed cameras? Thanks!

According to a fairly reliable source here, its 8km/h over the posted limit which is the tolerance. But again, thats not from myself, just a source here. Then again I'd personally maintain that 2km/h over the limit, by their equipment which is accurate to ±2km/h or thereabouts, would be legally enough ground for a prosecution. However 8km/h seems to be the precedent.

Remembering at 108km/h on your Speedo, your probably "truly" doing 100km/h. Speedo's tend to read high. So basically if your speedo said 115km/h or so, and you were in a 100km/h zone, you were probably just over.

npr240

ironclaw wrote: »

I'm going to throw a spanner in the works on this...

The tunnel is protected at one end by a barrier and for a fee the public are allowed use the tunnel. As such does the tunnel fall under a private road & place? As such do the Gardai have authority in the tunnel in matters such as speed and road traffic act?

I'm not trying to set up a legal defense or claim its one, just interested seeing as it could be viewed as a private road / place given if they closed the barriers for one 24 period per year (or whatever the statue is) i.e. Maintained a right of way.

Its an interesting point but I would assume that the Tunnel is no different from any other toll road. It is simply another part of the M50. I don't see how anyone could be banned from using the tunnel separately from any other road. It is a public road. The Gardai would have authority to act within the tunnel but there may be restrictions on Gardai mounting checkpoints/speed checks within the tunnel for health & safety or operational reasons. A SPECS/average speed camera system would seem to be the way to safely enforce the speed limits in the tunnel.

cyclopath2001

SeanW wrote: »

What I am challenging is your obsessive position that travelling above the speed limit is always bad and that posted speed limits are always 100% absolute guides to safe driving and that anyone who breaks any limit any time, any place must be hunted down and made PAY! in all cases.

You're misrepresenting my position.

First and foremost people should obey the law, this includes both driving within the speed limit and driving safely.

Our man in Havana

By the same token cyclists should do the same, but they don't.

cyclopath2001

Our man in Havana wrote: »

By the same token cyclists should do the same, but they don't.

So, how would you deal with the problem of people breaking the speed limit in the port tunnel? Blame cyclists?

Bif

ironclaw wrote: »

According to a fairly reliable source here, its 8km/h over the posted limit which is the tolerance. But again, thats not from myself, just a source here. Then again I'd personally maintain that 2km/h over the limit, by their equipment which is accurate to ±2km/h or thereabouts, would be legally enough ground for a prosecution. However 8km/h seems to be the precedent.

Remembering at 108km/h on your Speedo, your probably "truly" doing 100km/h. Speedo's tend to read high. So basically if your speedo said 115km/h or so, and you were in a 100km/h zone, you were probably just over.

Thanks for that. Do you beleive that the 8kph tolerance is applicable across all the speed limits i.e. 50 + 8 to 120 + 8?

Heroditas

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

So, how would you deal with the problem of people breaking the speed limit in the port tunnel? Blame cyclists?

Sounds good to me.

Leonard Hofstadter

The problem I have with such an unhealthy obession with speed limits (as exampled by cyclopath) is that you'd swear the bloody things were appropriately set in the first place!

Everyone knows of examples where a decent road has the same or a lower speed limit than a crappy road!

One of the obvious ones to me at least is the Cork-Limerick road, this has a limit of 100 kph (for the most part) yet the Limerick tunnell is 80! I appreciate that the risks in a tunnell do warrant a lower speed limit, but seriously, how can it be safer to travel between say Mallow and Buttevant at 100 kph than to go through the tunnell at 80? You can't even get to 100 for the first few km outside of Buttevant (heading towards Mallow) ffs!

Yet by the logic of cyclopath, if you had a car that had exceptional handling and a really skilful driver 100 is ok on this road (because the limit is 100) even though there are serious twists and turns and the average driver with an average car would struggle to get to 85 never mind 100, yet doing 81 in the Limerick tunnel would result in me being someone who and I quote:

"break(s) safety laws" and "need(s) early intervention and correction" for fear I may "proceed to more serious forms of offending" :eek::rolleyes:!

Absolute madness! Yes I agree that we all have to be responsible drivers, and to be fair I don't think anyone is advocating that we go down back roads at 90 miles an hour but ffs a bit of common sense is needed in relation to "speeding" and speed limits! Many of our limits are too low, and some are too high. I would prefer if people engaged their brains and drove at a speed appropriate to the conditions. I mean I see nothing wrong with someone doing anything up to 150 or 160 on a motorway for example, and all those dual carriageways with stupid 100 kph limits should be increased to 120 minimum!

focus_mad

Our man in Havana wrote: »

By the same token cyclists should do the same, but they don't.

You have a point. Came within inches of mowing down a cyclist the other day all because he thought a red light was still a signal for him tomgo through the crossroads at speed!!

Anyway..back on topic... I have had my reg displayed a number of times in the tunnel (southbound) but that's all.

Obviously Gardai cannot operate in the tunnel for H & S.. But regarding private road, we pay a toll on the mifty but ya can still get done by the Gardai for speeding.

ironclaw

Bif wrote: »

Thanks for that. Do you beleive that the 8kph tolerance is applicable across all the speed limits i.e. 50 + 8 to 120 + 8?

Apparently yes. I've been told, in a very nasty manner by PM, that no one will be issued a speeding ticket from GoSafe for less than 8km/h over the limit.

focus_mad wrote: »

Obviously Gardai cannot operate in the tunnel for H & S.. But regarding private road, we pay a toll on the mifty but ya can still get done by the Gardai for speeding.

There is a slight different between the M50 and the tunnel. The tunnel can be closed, and has two entrances. As such its a single road and could be construed as a private road that the public are allowed access to for a fee. The M50 on the other hand has multiple exits and entrances, its only tolled in one section, and for it to be a private road it would have to be closed for 24 hours or whatever every 7 years so that the owner maintains their right of way (Not sure of that statue)

Its a stupid mute point anyway on my behalf. I'd just be curious as to how the tunnel stands in the realm of "right of way" and "private place", and what powers the Gardai have on it. Bearing in mind a Garda cannot enter your property without a warrant, an invitation or life/death scenario's.

Anyway, its a debate for another thread.

dr.fuzzenstein

ironclaw wrote: »

According to a fairly reliable source here, its 8km/h over the posted limit which is the tolerance. But again, thats not from myself, just a source here. Then again I'd personally maintain that 2km/h over the limit, by their equipment which is accurate to ±2km/h or thereabouts, would be legally enough ground for a prosecution. However 8km/h seems to be the precedent.

Remembering at 108km/h on your Speedo, your probably "truly" doing 100km/h. Speedo's tend to read high. So basically if your speedo said 115km/h or so, and you were in a 100km/h zone, you were probably just over.

On my way into Limerick from Ennis, there is a speed trap just before the Caherdavin exit on a fairly regular basis.
I have passed this trap with my needle showing just a touch over 110 km/h on two occasions.
Never heard anything.
I'd suspect that every now and then one or two people get done for doing 1-2 km/h over, just to put "The Fear" into people and get massive media exposure, but if they did it on a regular basis, they would finally be challenged on the basis that there are so many variables between the oncoming car, the speed camera, the angle of the road, the angle of reflective surfaces on the vehicle, the angle of the camera to the road, inaccuracies in the camera, the speedo, etc, etc... that it would have to be found that it is simply impossible to keep to the speedlimit within +/-1 km/h.
Or as I call those cases "Fcuking them for the sake of fcuking them".

JamesBond2010

this thread hasnt changed,quiet for a fews wks, then the same people talking crap and causing trouble again!!

-Chris-

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

this thread hasnt changed,quiet for a fews wks, then the same people talking crap and causing trouble again!!

Well, this is why the Mega-Thread was created, better to have all the circular, repetitive discussions in one place rather than strewn across the forum... :D

JamesBond2010

-Chris- wrote: »

Well, this is why the Mega-Thread was created, better to have all the circular, repetitive discussions in one place rather than strewn across the forum... :D

u know who i am talking about dont u:D:D:p:p:p