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

cyclopath2001

dar83 wrote: »

That's a bit totalitarian, but I guess if that idea was brought into operation it would seriously reduce congestion but also the tax/fine take so the government would be out of pocket and therefore unhappy. :P

Roads would be lovely and empty though.

Any losses due to lower fines collected would be well exceeded by the benefits to the economy and society of lower deaths and life-changing injuries.

Shock tactics alright, but once the authorities have shown that they're really serious, the majority of drivers will cop on and start behaving. Right now, the problem is drivers know they're unlikely to be caught and even if they are, the penalties are tiny.

-Chris-

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's because stronger measures are needed. Current deterrants are not working.

I meant the discussions in the thread are repetitive, not the issues on the road.

Seeing as there's no stronger measure we can give other than to ban a poster who makes the same argument over and over (and believe me, I'd love to), I presume you're just talking about the issues on the road and accidentally quoted me.

The rest of your post is lunacy, pure and simple.

cyclopath2001

I meant the discussions in the thread are repetitive, not the issues on the road.[/Quote]If you cannot see a connection between the the two, you are lack insight into why things are not improving.

-Chris- wrote: »

The rest of your post is lunacy, pure and simple

It's understandable that you might not like road traffice laws being enforced vigourously, but please think if of the many wrecked lives resulting from the current softly, softly approach.

Chris_Heilong

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I meant the discussions in the thread are repetitive, not the issues on the road.

If you cannot see a connection between the the two, you are lack insight into why things are not improving.

It's understandable that you might not like road traffice laws being enforced vigourously, but please think if of the many wrecked lives resulting from the current softly, softly approach.[/QUOTE]

Road deaths were lower last year than ever, so guess things have improved and drivers have copped on as you put it. Hopefully if we are really good the national speed limit will be increased to 60k/h or at least keep the 50k/h with a tolerance of up to 60. Just my opinion.

-Chris-

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

If you cannot see a connection between the the two, you are lack insight into why things are not improving.

I'd love to see how you connect the dots on that one - repetitive arguments on an internet forum are connected to road death/speeding statistics not improving?

At the very most, the fact that the conversation rarely develops beyond a couple of key issues, and the fact that people dance the same dance without ever conceding an inch, would indicate that the biggest issue is that neither side is prepared to listen to the other or respect the other's opinions.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's understandable that you might not like road traffice laws being enforced vigourously, but please think if of the many wrecked lives resulting from the current softly, softly approach.

Try and enforce a law through "brutality" and all you'll get is outwardly obedient people who are still prepared to break the law when they're convinced they won't get caught.

Make the law reasonable & convince people why it's important to obey it, and it'll largely become self-policing.

You need a culture change, not a draconian punishment system.

Unfortunately for us culture change is hard, and draconian laws are easy...

monument

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's because stronger measures are needed. Current deterrants are not working.

Instant driving bans should be applied for speeding offences, then re-training followed by long periods of supervision/monitoring once the license has been restored.

Safety of innocent citizens should be the highest priority.

Once drivers realise the serious consequences for themselves when they put others at risk, then we'll see some real progress.

Time to take off the kid gloves.

Are instant driving bans not a bit over the top?

Our man in Havana

Instant bans would be unconstitutional. Not a chance of it happening.

Leonard Hofstadter

monument wrote: »

Are instant driving bans not a bit over the top?

Not in cyclopath's world they're not.

Back in the real world they are.

monument

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Instant bans would be unconstitutional. Not a chance of it happening.

I don't agree with his idea as outline, but how do you figure such would be unconstitutional? There is no constitutional right to drive.

_AVALANCHE_

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's because stronger measures are needed. Current deterrants are not working.

Instant driving bans should be applied for speeding offences, then re-training followed by long periods of supervision/monitoring once the license has been restored.

Safety of innocent citizens should be the highest priority.

Once drivers realise the serious consequences for themselves when they put others at risk, then we'll see some real progress.

Time to take off the kid gloves.

What about getting the Manufacturers to make Cars unable to go over 120kph.

Our man in Havana

monument wrote: »

I don't agree with his idea as outline, but how do you figure such would be unconstitutional? There is no constitutional right to drive.

Summary punishment without a trial/appeals process is unconstitutional.

pippip

_AVALANCHE_ wrote: »

What about getting the Manufacturers to make Cars unable to go over 120kph.

good idea but what if you go to europe where they have higher limits:)

poldebruin

_AVALANCHE_ wrote: »

What about getting the Manufacturers to make Cars unable to go over 120kph.

This wouldn't bother me, but won't prevent someone doing 100 on an 80 secondary road, which IMO is more dangerous.

pippip

Whats real scary is that with all the advances in Satnav IT systems and the tech in electric cars in a decade or two limits could be in place on a road by road basis.

i know it's a bit out there but well possible with how the world is going.

monument

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Summary punishment without a trial/appeals process is unconstitutional.

I don't think he excluded a trial/appeals process, and even if it was his plan (which I don't agree with) could be modified to include such.

pippip wrote: »

good idea but what if you go to europe where they have higher limits:)

Easy, have it GPS based. Once it leaves Ireland it knocks off.

Having it GPS based it can enforce all limits, not only the highest one.

For safety reasons, if there is a problem with the signal it knocks off. Also case of error, within X distance near motorways or other larger roads with high speed limits the limiter is set to only enforce the highest limit (ie on an overpass or a road along side a motorway, the limiter would only enforce the higher limit).

No GPS or other data sent or shared with state bodies (other than the way or phone data is), but make it hard to tamper with and set high punishments for those who tamper with it.

Bring it in first for new cars and repeat offenders, followed cars used by learners and then slowly for everybody else.

poldebruin

monument wrote: »

I don't think he excluded a trial/appeals process, and even if it was his plan (which I don't agree with) could be modified to include such.




Easy, have it GPS based. Once it leaves Ireland it knocks off.

Having it GPS based it can enforce all limits, not only the highest one.

For safety reasons, if there is a problem with the signal it knocks off. Also case of error, within X distance near motorways or other larger roads with high speed limits the limiter is set to only enforce the highest limit (ie on an overpass or a road along side a motorway, the limiter would only enforce the higher limit).

No GPS or other data sent or shared with state bodies (other than the way or phone data is), but make it hard to tamper with and set high punishments for those who tamper with it.

Bring it in first for new cars and repeat offenders, followed cars used by learners and then slowly for everybody else.

Would the GPS-controlled system adjust for driving conditions, weather and traffic? or would it just dumbly limit your car based assigned speed limits. If it's the latter then it is not of much use for a lot of cost.

Our man in Havana

monument wrote: »

I don't think he excluded a trial/appeals process, and even if it was his plan (which I don't agree with) could be modified to include such.

Then it cannot be an instant ban.

Unless Ireland becomes part of the 4th Reich it ain't gonna happen.

monument

poldebruin wrote: »

Would the GPS-controlled system adjust for driving conditions, weather and traffic? or would it just dumbly limit your car based assigned speed limits. If it's the latter then it is not of much use for a lot of cost.

Getting enforcement of current limits would have a huge benefit even in worse conditions. In wet conditions etc usually the problem isn't people going at the limit but going well over it, just as they do always.

And costs would be limited if brought in on a phased bases over a long time -- and getting repeat offenders as the first to pay for it is an non-issue.

poldebruin

monument wrote: »

Getting enforcement of current limits would have a huge benefit even in worse conditions. In wet conditions etc usually the problem isn't people going at the limit but going well over it, just as they do always.

And costs would be limited if brought in on a phased bases over a long time -- and getting repeat offenders as the first to pay for it is an non-issue.

My point is that (for example) doing 120 on a motorway when driving rain or icy is inappropriate but wouldn't be in breach of the law or the gps-controlled system you are advocating.

I think Chris has mentioned that the way to improve things is to educate people into not being knobs when driving (this is not limited to speeding) and to punish people when they are caught driving knobbishly. There is little (safety) benefit to be gained from hiding speed vans and ticketing people for doing 110 in a 100 zone.

I think the work google have been carrying out on self drive cars will bear fruit in a decade or so. (and it won't be long for the hovercars to arrive after that )

monument

poldebruin wrote: »

My point is that (for example) doing 120 on a motorway when driving rain or icy is inappropriate but wouldn't be in breach of the law or the gps-controlled system you are advocating.

Trying to add in weather conditions to any such system would be over complicate the system, add guess work to it or the need for a lot of real-time sensors on lots of roads, and add data sharing between the car and the state or a third party (which could lead to lots of claims of abuses or possible abuses etc)... all for little return.

A motorway should be always be salted etc, and while it may not stop people from going 120km/h it would stop them from going over such speeds. The major current speed-related problem on motorways is some drivers going over the limit regardless of conditions.

The same applies to elsewhere -- if you get everybody down to at least the limit there's a large overall benefit in good and poor conditions.

This saves on enforcement or frees up enforcement for other areas, and any saves of follow ups to enforcment (ie collecting fines or court time and money etc). It could also hardly suffer as being accused of being money making as the speed camera system is and this could help with education of why laws are put in place (ie not for revenue).

poldebruin

monument wrote: »

Trying to add in weather conditions to any such system would be over complicate the system, add guess work to it or the need for a lot of real-time sensors on lots of roads, and add data sharing between the car and the state or a third party (which could lead to lots of claims of abuses or possible abuses etc)... all for little return.

That's exactly my point. The GPS-controlled system would be useless.

monument wrote: »

A motorway should be always be salted etc, and while it may not stop people from going 120km/h it would stop them from going over such speeds. The major current speed-related problem on motorways is some drivers going over the limit regardless of conditions.).

I don't think the major problem on motorways is speed. It's poor lane discipline, bad overtaking decisions, not checking mirrors, not understanding how to merge traffic, not keeping a safe distance etc. Driving at 130 on a motorway is not in itself inherently dangerous. (although I would not advocate it)

monument wrote: »

The same applies to elsewhere -- if you get everybody down to at least the limit there's a large overall benefit in good and poor conditions.).

Not really, taking a bend at 80 on a secondary road is dangerous, not driving at 85. Overtaking on a blind corner on a secondary road is dangerous, not driving at 85 etc etc.

I would much prefer to see a traffic corps including unmarked cars driving looking for, and enforcing dangerous driving. I see plenty on every journey I undertake, and I believe this would do more to improve road safety instead of parking safety vans (or whatever) in laneways etc.

monument

poldebruin wrote: »

That's exactly my point. The GPS-controlled system would be useless.

No.

The addition costs etc need for a system which would take weather conditions into account would not be worth it, but that does not mean that a GPS system without a weather conditions function is not worth it. Weather conditions are by far not the be all and end all of road safety and getting people below the limit is of benefit even in poor weather conditions.

poldebruin wrote: »

I don't think the major problem on motorways is speed. It's poor lane discipline, bad overtaking decisions, not checking mirrors, not understanding how to merge traffic, not keeping a safe distance etc. Driving at 130 on a motorway is not in itself inherently dangerous. (although I would not advocate it)

As I said: "The major current speed-related problem on motorways". Anyways, the greater the speed the grater the stopping distance / slowing distance / impact.

And this isn't just about motorways.

poldebruin wrote: »

Not really, taking a bend at 80 on a secondary road is dangerous, not driving at 85. Overtaking on a blind corner on a secondary road is dangerous, not driving at 85 etc etc.

Doing 80km/h on a secondary road is not always inherently dangerous, and 80km/h should not be the limit anywhere near a blind corner.

The new system could be brought in over a long time and in the meanwhile speed limits could be adjusted so the limits on unsuitable country lanes and other twisty road are lowered and those on suitable big, wide roads are increased.

poldebruin wrote: »

I would much prefer to see a traffic corps including unmarked cars driving looking for, and enforcing dangerous driving. I see plenty on every journey I undertake, and I believe this would do more to improve road safety instead of parking safety vans (or whatever) in laneways etc.

By using speed limiters, the needed speed enforcement is reduced thus enforcement time and money can be spent elsewhere.

poldebruin

monument wrote: »

No.

The addition costs etc need for a system which would take weather conditions into account would not be worth it, but that does not mean that a GPS system without a weather conditions function is not worth it. Weather conditions are by far not the be all and end all of road safety and getting people below the limit is of benefit even in poor weather conditions.

I think you are missing my point (perhaps I'm not articulating it well) A GPS-controlled system does not ensure a sensible or safe speed. It would only ensure you did not break the posted speed limit. There are too many variables for it to be an effective measure.

monument wrote: »

As I said: "The major current speed-related problem on motorways". Anyways, the greater the speed the grater the stopping distance / slowing distance / impact.

And this isn't just about motorways.

my point is that I don't believe there is a speed-related problem on motorways - it's the one place here it is safe to drive fast. I listed things that I believe are more dangerous. Why waste resources policing our safest roads for speed?

monument wrote: »

Doing 80km/h on a secondary road is not always inherently dangerous, and 80km/h should not be the limit anywhere near a blind corner.

I just said that overtaking on a blind corner is dangerous - that's my point, the speed is irrelevent.

monument wrote: »

..meanwhile speed limits could be adjusted so the limits on unsuitable country lanes and other twisty road are lowered and those on suitable big, wide roads are increased.

Well I agree on this. Some of the speed limits are completely wide of the mark.

monument wrote: »

By using speed limiters, the needed speed enforcement is reduced thus enforcement time and money can be spent elsewhere.

I just don't agree that limiting speed on cars in the way you are suggesting would make our roads safer. We need better, more educated drivers.

cyclopath2001

poldebruin wrote: »

roads safer. We need better, more educated drivers.

We need better, disciplined drivers.

dahamsta

Do as I say, not as I do, eh cyclopath?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76539107&postcount=17

monument

poldebruin wrote: »

monument wrote: »

No.

The addition costs etc need for a system which would take weather conditions into account would not be worth it, but that does not mean that a GPS system without a weather conditions function is not worth it. Weather conditions are by far not the be all and end all of road safety and getting people below the limit is of benefit even in poor weather conditions.

I think you are missing my point (perhaps I'm not articulating it well) A GPS-controlled system does not ensure a sensible or safe speed. It would only ensure you did not break the posted speed limit. There are too many variables for it to be an effective measure.

No, it's really not that complicated.

We don't need a science-sounding nonsence to explain this -- it is fairly basic physics: there is a benefit in all conditions even where you reduce the speeds a small bit.

You can keep your blinkers on but one of the most important factors in the physics related to accidents is speed.

poldebruin wrote: »

monument wrote: »

As I said: "The major current speed-related problem on motorways". Anyways, the greater the speed the grater the stopping distance / slowing distance / impact.

And this isn't just about motorways.

my point is that I don't believe there is a speed-related problem on motorways - it's the one place here it is safe to drive fast. I listed things that I believe are more dangerous. Why waste resources policing our safest roads for speed?

(1) Err you just quoted me saying "isn't just about motorways".

(2) It would not be wasting resources, it would free up resources to tackle the things on your list -- for many years repeat offenders could be even the only people forced to use these.

(3) A factor in the safety of our motorways is enforcement of speed.

(4) You told me "120 on a motorway when driving rain or icy is inappropriate" and now you're saying "one place here it is safe to drive fast" -- make up your mind please!

poldebruin wrote: »

monument wrote: »

Doing 80km/h on a secondary road is not always inherently dangerous, and 80km/h should not be the limit anywhere near a blind corner.

I just said that overtaking on a blind corner is dangerous - that's my point, the speed is irrelevant.

No, that's not what you said.

But trying to claim that speed is irrelevant shows you know very little about the basic physics which changes the rate of increased risk of an accident happening and greater damage when it does.

poldebruin wrote: »

monument wrote: »

..meanwhile speed limits could be adjusted so the limits on unsuitable country lanes and other twisty road are lowered and those on suitable big, wide roads are increased.

Well I agree on this. Some of the speed limits are completely wide of the mark.

Great, then your complains about speed limits lessens massively.

poldebruin wrote: »

monument wrote: »

By using speed limiters, the needed speed enforcement is reduced thus enforcement time and money can be spent elsewhere.

I just don't agree that limiting speed on cars in the way you are suggesting would make our roads safer. We need better, more educated drivers.

On what bases do you disagree? When you discount basic physics?

The limiters would force education and free up the police and other resources to push education in other areas.

dahamsta wrote: »

Do as I say, not as I do, eh cyclopath?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76539107&postcount=17

What? You want him to cycle on what are legally footpaths or what are you saying?

SeanW

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Instant driving bans should be applied for speeding offences

Ah yes, cyclopath. The fountain of extremism and delusions that just keeps on giving. So, the second someone slips over 50kph on this Type 1 dual carriageway, they should "instantly banned, followed intense retraining and supervision. Or goes over 30kph on the N3 going into Dublin city, where the N3 goes over the N50 on a Grade Separated Junction, is very wide with no impediments and high visibility, but despite this has a ridiculously low limit.

Your absolute "Tunnel Vision" thinking has no limits, does it?

It's understandable that you might not like road traffice laws being enforced vigourously

What you're suggesting is not vigorous enforcement, it's NEW LAW, that your proposing, which is utterly stark raving bonkers.

but please think if (sic) of the many wrecked lives resulting from

How about the lives YOU would wreck with your insane instant bans, of people who would lose their livliehoods, like professional drivers or people who need their cars to get to work? Or drive their children to school, football practice etc? A person whos only crime might be "racing" down an HQDC at 55-60kph? Bet you didn't think of them!!!

What? You want him to cycle on what are legally footpaths or what are you saying?

Why not? His name is "cyclopath" which is a good hint, and why should he be any different to all the other cyclists I see who seem to have no problem cycling on footpaths? (running red lights etc)

focus_mad

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's because stronger measures are needed. Current deterrants are not working.

Instant driving bans should be applied for speeding offences, then re-training followed by long periods of supervision/monitoring once the license has been restored.

Safety of innocent citizens should be the highest priority.

Once drivers realise the serious consequences for themselves when they put others at risk, then we'll see some real progress.

Time to take off the kid gloves.

So someone goes 5kmph over the limit they have to be banned and then at the governments expense re-trained??

Eh by any chance can instant cycling bans be given to the twats that cycle through red lights, cycle on paths when cycle lanes are provided and thirdly and this really f**king gets to me, is the cycling down a cycle lane/bus lane in the opposite way to the traffic on a one way street.

Almost clipped another cyclist the other day cause she cycled through a red light right outside Pearse Street Garda Zstation, thankfully there was a motorcycle Garda behibd her and my god did he give her a bollicking.

And this cycling against the flow of traffic, yes I will admit it I purposely drive on the cycle lane when I see a cyclist coming towards me. What is it, rules for 4 wheelers and other rules for 2 wheelers?

Iwannahurl

focus_mad wrote: »

Almost clipped another cyclist the other day cause she cycled through a red light right outside Pearse Street Garda Zstation, thankfully there was a motorcycle Garda behibd her and my god did he give her a bollicking.

And this cycling against the flow of traffic, yes I will admit it I purposely drive on the cycle lane when I see a cyclist coming towards me. What is it, rules for 4 wheelers and other rules for 2 wheelers?

Pearse Street Garda Station? That would be where members of AGS park their official and personal vehicles obnoxiously all over the place, including on footpaths.

It's good to see individual Gardai showing they care about road traffic law, including as it pertains to cyclists. Breaking red lights and not being lit at night are two biggies in that context, IMO. Cycling on footpaths and the 'wrong' way up one-way streets is a bit more complex.

None of this changes the fact that speeding is a major factor in road deaths and must be tackled accordingly.

focus_mad

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Pearse Street Garda Station? That would be where members of AGS park their official and personal vehicles obnoxiously all over the place, including on footpaths.

It's good to see individual Gardai showing they care about road traffic law, including as it pertains to cyclists. Breaking red lights and not being lit at night are two biggies, in that context IMO. Cycling on footpaths and the 'wrong' way up one-way streets is a bit more complex.

None of this changes the fact that speeding is a major factor in road deaths and must be tackled accordingly.

Yes that would be one and the same

I know that none of this changes speeding etc but I was replying to the instant ban mindset of the porter that I had quoted.

Speeding is a major factor but coupled with this is the fact that A percentage of Irish drivers should not be behind the wheel of a car as they do not how to control it, never mind at speed.