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

SeanW

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.

The problem is that other than a fine and "right bollocking" there is nothing the guards can do, the 1 time in 20000 that a cyclist does something insane and are caught.

Cyclists are not:

1. Tested
2. Licensed
3. Required to carry insurance for the accidents they cause
4. Don't have registration plates.
5. Not subject to penalty points or disqualification.
6. Also they're not treated as limitless milk cows to the tune of €1000s per year by government.

Yet for some reason it's motorists that need to be regulated more, taxed more and penalised more for every minor/imagined transgression.

I would suggest that it is CYCLISTS for whom the softly-softly approach is not working and for them it's "time to take off the kid gloves" because obviously law breaking isn't limited to just one group of road users ...

cyclopath2001

dahamsta wrote: »

Do as I say, not as I do, eh cyclopath?http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76539107&postcount=17

I stated that it is wrong to cycle on a footpath unless it has been properly designated as a cycle track.

Help me out, why would you have a problem with this?

poldebruin

monument wrote: »

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.

There are no blinkers on here at all. I would argue that i am looking at the bigger picture and suggesting a well-rounded approach to the problem. It's you that is arguing over and over for your single idea "put limiters on cars to improve road safety"

monument wrote: »

(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!

1. So what, I obviously missed adding another close quote. Is this the level I'm going to have to reply to?

2. Fitting every car in the country with a GPS system that can track speed limits and limit your car speed, when it will not stop inappropriate speed, inappropriate maneuvers and inappropriate driving IS a waste of resources.

3. Of course speed is a factor - you're just overstating it. The main safety feature of motorways is the central reservation and the fact that it's a good quality, straight (and normally) flat. Speed cameras on motorways are the least effective way of ensuring safety. Speed cameras on secondary roots would save more lives IMO

4. Nobody will bother going back to check, but i can assure you that these two points that you have whacked together are completely unrelated. It is inappropriate to drive on a motorway at 120 in ice (obvious), but it's also the safest place in the country to drive fast.

monument wrote: »

No, that's not what you said.

Go back and check. It is exactly what I said. No mention of speed of overtaking, just that it was dangerous to overtake on a blind bend at any speed.

monument wrote: »

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.

No one is arguing that speed is a factor in accidents and road safety (although i don't believe it plays as major a role as you do). For god's sake you could reduce the speed limit to 60 nationally and we'd all be crawling around the place not crashing into one another. That is not going to happen and a balance needs to be struck. The best way to do this is better education of drivers IMO.

monument wrote: »

Great, then your complains about speed limits lessens massively.

I was going to try and respond to this but realised that I don't understand what you are trying to say here. There aren't inconsistencies in what i have written before though.

monument wrote: »

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

Stupid comment.

monument wrote: »

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

Why would the limiters "force education" It would seem to me that your solution is the complete opposite, to take it out of the drivers hands altogether.

I shalln't be responding again, when it's obvious that you are going out of your way to misunderstand what i'm saying, combine and misquote things i have written, and putting forth single-minded rubbish in the place of well thought out comment. "Discounting Physics?" ....Jesus wept.

cyclopath2001

SeanW wrote: »

I would suggest that it is CYCLISTS for whom the softly-softly approach is not working and for them it's "time to take off the kid gloves" because obviously law breaking isn't limited to just one group of road users ...

Yet despite all of the 'regulation' of driving, 78% of drivers break speed limits, we all see many incorrectly lit cars, amber light offences, tailgating, wrong way driving on roundabouts, illegal parking and overtaking are rampant. It's very clear that current measures are ineffectual.

'Education' is not going to work, unless the lesson is a hard one.

Our man in Havana

Yawn!

cyclopath2001

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Yawn!

Falling asleep at the wheel?

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Yet despite all of the 'regulation' of driving, 78% of drivers break speed limits, we all see many incorrectly lit cars, amber light offences, tailgating, wrong way driving on roundabouts, illegal parking and overtaking are rampant. It's very clear that current measures are ineffectual.

'Education' is not going to work, unless the lesson is a hard one.

I have to say I actually agree for once, bad behavior on Irish roads is rampant, people do it because they chances of anything happening are virtually nil.
Who here hasn't seen blatant disregard of the ROTR withing sight of Gardai, be they traffic corps or otherwise, only for them to just ignore it and carry on on their merry way.
Cameras deal with speeding and that's fair enough, but for all the other offences there needs to be Garda enforcement.

Iwannahurl

SeanW wrote: »

The problem is that other than a fine and "right bollocking" there is nothing the guards can do, the 1 time in 20000 that a cyclist does something insane and are caught.


Cyclists are not:

1. Tested
2. Licensed
3. Required to carry insurance for the accidents they cause
4. Don't have registration plates.
5. Not subject to penalty points or disqualification.
6. Also they're not treated as limitless milk cows to the tune of €1000s per year by government.

Yet for some reason it's motorists that need to be regulated more, taxed more and penalised more for every minor/imagined transgression.

I would suggest that it is CYCLISTS for whom the softly-softly approach is not working and for them it's "time to take off the kid gloves" because obviously law breaking isn't limited to just one group of road users ...

Same terms and conditions apply to pedestrians and bus users also, I reckon.

If motorists have it so bad, why have their numbers increased massively over the last few decades? And if motorists are being hammered extra hard by the law enforcers, why do so many of them still break the law, often in a highly visible manner?

And finally, are you suggesting that cyclists have a significant, or even a disproportionate, impact on the number of road deaths?

Personally, I suspect that cyclists get away with flouting the law for the same reason so many other road users get away with such behaviour: our traditionally lax culture of compliance and enforcement.

This is one big reason why I welcome the GoSafe programme -- it's a dedicated enforcement effort which significantly augments current efforts.

JamesBond2010

groundhog day ur definitly right there on this thread....same old stupid arguments again & again..:mad: :(

Leonard Hofstadter

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I have to say I actually agree for once, bad behavior on Irish roads is rampant, people do it because they chances of anything happening are virtually nil.
Who here hasn't seen blatant disregard of the ROTR withing sight of Gardai, be they traffic corps or otherwise, only for them to just ignore it and carry on on their merry way.
Cameras deal with speeding and that's fair enough, but for all the other offences there needs to be Garda enforcement.

The problem is that "speeding" is totally overstated and anyway there are a hell of a lot of other regulations, many of which are far more important than exceeding an arbitrary made up number.

Fatalities in the UK have gone down even though they got rid of speed cameras. Yes fatalities went down last year here (and last year was the first year of the money making scams we had), so you could argue that they work, except that that conveniently ignores the fact that deaths have been going down for the last number of years, long before the cameras were introduced. So at best they made no difference.

Some people of course have such tunnel vision about it there is no point in reasoning with them. They are also the kind of people who are anti-car full stop, so want to make peoples' lives more miserable all in the name of "road safety".

jack presley

I drove past one of the GoSafe vans this evening in a 50kmph zone and I was definitely doing under 50kmph (probably around 47-48) as I knew this was one their spots. However as I got close to the van there was a little flash out of the back window, kind of like how a small hand held camera would flash. Was this them getting me or does that go off for every car that passes? It was pitch black with very little street lighting.

SeanW

captainspeed wrote: »

The problem is that "speeding" is totally overstated and anyway there are a hell of a lot of other regulations, many of which are far more important than exceeding an arbitrary made up number.

Fatalities in the UK have gone down even though they got rid of speed cameras. Yes fatalities went down last year here (and last year was the first year of the money making scams we had), so you could argue that they work, except that that conveniently ignores the fact that deaths have been going down for the last number of years, long before the cameras were introduced. So at best they made no difference.

Some people of course have such tunnel vision about it there is no point in reasoning with them. They are also the kind of people who are anti-car full stop, so want to make peoples' lives more miserable all in the name of "road safety".

QFT!

A wise man once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. The "two wheels good, four wheels bad" brigade will never be shaken of their myopic extremism.

I stand to gain nothing continuing this "debate" except a more disturbing insight into warped, obsessed minds. I don't expect anything in terms of debate except:

CP2001, IWH etc. wrote:

Baaaaaa. Baaaaaa. Baaaaaa.
For wheels bad two wheels good.

Evil Motorists ... law breakers, NEED MORE PUNISHMENTS ...
blah blah blah, blah ... blah.

Not worth wasting my time.
So I am out.

Iwannahurl

SeanW wrote: »

QFT!

A wise man once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. The "two wheels good, four wheels bad" brigade will never be shaken of their myopic extremism.

I stand to gain nothing continuing this "debate" except a more disturbing insight into warped, obsessed minds. I don't expect anything in terms of debate except:

Not worth wasting my time.
So I am out.

God speed!

I think GoSafe will eventually ensure that those motorists who like to do the same thing, ie speeding, over and over will eventually find they are getting the same result.

In this context, that's what matters in the end. The number of wheels matters not a whit.

focus_mad

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Yet despite all of the 'regulation' of driving, 78% of drivers break speed limits, we all see many incorrectly lit cars, amber light offences, tailgating, wrong way driving on roundabouts, illegal parking and overtaking are rampant. It's very clear that current measures are ineffectual.

'Education' is not going to work, unless the lesson is a hard one.

Yet no mention of your fellow cyclists wrong doings?? :rolleyes:

cyclopath2001

focus_mad wrote: »

Yet no mention of your fellow cyclists wrong doings?? :rolleyes:

Darwin usually gets them in the end.

But, here we're discussing speed limit compliance, an area of special difficulty for most drivers.

Our man in Havana

Do you drive or even have a driving licence?

MugMugs

I met a Go Safe van on the M2 this morning. The van was on the hard shoulder.

Surely these lads dont cover Motorways too, do they ?

ironclaw

MugMugs wrote: »

I met a Go Safe van on the M2 this morning. The van was on the hard shoulder.

Surely these lads dont cover Motorways too, do they ?

You sure it was a GoSafe van? Marked etc? And was it within the marked locations?

To the best of my knowledge, seeing as its illegal to park on a motorway except in an emergency, they can't. Garda would be a different matter.

Blazer

Caught again in Kildimo village in Limerick by traffic corp I'd say.
Another 2 points.. was caught again about 2 years previously..
Bunch of fúckers really going for easy catches as it's a 50kph zone about 800 yards outside the village which is a complete joke:mad:

MugMugs

ironclaw wrote: »

You sure it was a GoSafe van? Marked etc? And was it within the marked locations?

To the best of my knowledge, seeing as its illegal to park on a motorway except in an emergency, they can't. Garda would be a different matter.

Most certainly a Go Safe. Fully marked. One of the white ones. I nearly sh1t myself when I saw it.

These lads aren't prowling motorways now, are they ? There's no signage for the M2 so I assume it's not zoned. I thought they were just where people had died...

Our man in Havana

Maybe he had stopped to have a pee?

It BeeMee

MugMugs wrote: »

I met a Go Safe van on the M2 this morning. The van was on the hard shoulder.

Surely these lads dont cover Motorways too, do they ?

It can hardly be legal or safe to have a van parked in the hard shoulder?

I was in Dublin recently and noticed that at the start of the M7 southbound at Naas, there are camera signs :eek:
Has anyone ever seen a van there?

Dublinstiofán

MugMugs wrote: »

Most certainly a Go Safe. Fully marked. One of the white ones. I nearly sh1t myself when I saw it.

These lads aren't prowling motorways now, are they ? There's no signage for the M2 so I assume it's not zoned. I thought they were just where people had died...

How do you tell the difference between a Gosafe and a Gatso? I encountered one today that had no markings and the road in question is not on the 'locations of safety cameras map' on the Garda website.

focus_mad

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Darwin usually gets them in the end.

But, here we're discussing speed limit compliance, an area of special difficulty for most drivers.

:rolleyes:

Well it appears then that I have a battle to see how many I can get first

Blazer wrote: »

Caught again in Kildimo village in Limerick by traffic corp I'd say.
Another 2 points.. was caught again about 2 years previously..
Bunch of fúckers really going for easy catches as it's a 50kph zone about 800 yards outside the village which is a complete joke:mad:

Villages are usually speed posted.. What speed where you doing?

Blazer

focus_mad wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Well it appears then that I have a battle to see how many I can get first


Villages are usually speed posted.. What speed where you doing?

63kph
But before you get on the high horse note that the last time I was caught doing 86kph there, so I'm getting better and learning how to slow down .

jack presley

I drove past a gosafe van last night in a 50 zone definitely doing uner 50 but there was a little flash out of the rhs window as I drove past it. Was that just a standard flash that every car gets or should I expect something in the post. I'll be well pissed off if I do as I know for a fact I was only doing 47-48. Are there ever mistakes with them?

Our man in Havana

Probably the reflection from your own headlights.

jack presley

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Probably the reflection from your own headlights.

Hopefully.

Dublinstiofán

Dublinstiofán wrote: »

How do you tell the difference between a Gosafe and a Gatso? I encountered one today that had no markings and the road in question is not on the 'locations of safety cameras map' on the Garda website.

Anyone?


Can the Gatso Vans only operate on the marked routes on the Garda Website?

How can you tell the difference between a Gatso van and a Gosafe Van? The one i saw had no markings

Gosafe dont have a flash, they use infared. So you wont see anything.

Garda gatso vans can operate wherever they like, i got snapped on a road not on the garda website. They have a bright white flash, i believe it is triggered when they detect you going over the limit, it triggers the flash so the picture can be taken. So its not going off all the time.

So if youve seen a flash then it sounds like bad news for you.