Speed cameras in Ireland - a guide

GM228

robbie99 wrote: »

The article was actually in the Sunday Business Post, but you need a subscription to view it online - https://www.businesspost.ie/news/prosecutions-using-number-plate-recognition-system-void-386451

I'm pretty sure anpr can't be used anymore for prosecuting speeding offences. Hopefully someone here will have a subscription to confirm.

It's not actually mentioned in the article what the issue is, but I know there is an issue flagged about ANPR use in relation to detection for motor tax purposes only as I already outlined, road traffic offences are not affected, see the author of the SBPs article tweet.

https://twitter.com/obraonain/status/858633077693849600

no road traffic cases involved as RT legislation permits use of ANPR evidence

Pretty much all traffic and parking offences are covered under legislation for ANPR use.


Here's an ANPR speed detection from yesterday.

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/861144986582212608

ironclaw

GM228 wrote: »

Here's an ANPR speed detection from yesterday.

There is a subtle difference here.

Blowing past a Garda car at 100km/h in a 60km/h, assuming the Garda car are doing 60km/h (Which will show on the Cleartone device) is a slam dunk for speeding. If they had to do 100km/h to catch and keep pace, then that's where the 100km/h would come from. This is slightly different to the ANPR system leveraging the radar element to get the speed of the van.

I think most posters are wondering if the use of the radar system alone, not pacing, is actionable under legislation.

As regards that Tweet, I'm curious how they permitted a van to run two reds and squeeze a bus before they stopped him. Surely passing out at nigh twice the speed limit should have immediately lit blues?

GM228

ironclaw wrote: »

I think most posters are wondering if the use of the radar system alone, not pacing, is actionable under legislation.

The answer is yes, legislation provides for this, but currently the use of the Puma system requires both vehicles to be moving.

ironclaw wrote: »

As regards that Tweet, I'm curious how they permitted a van to run two reds and squeeze a bus before they stopped him. Surely passing out at nigh twice the speed limit should have immediately lit blues?

I would imagine the van driver was reluctant to stop at first and they gave chace, eventually perhaps stopping, or there were two lights close together which the van shot through before realising they were behind him?

ironclaw

GM228 wrote: »

The answer is yes, legislation provides for this, but currently the use of the Puma system requires both vehicles to be moving.

Wait, why do both vehicles have to be moving? Radar works when moving and not moving, you're just factoring in your speed. Plenty of systems do this. Is the Puma system simply a pace / time over distance measurement?

GM228

ironclaw wrote: »

Wait, why do both vehicles have to be moving? Radar works when moving and not moving, you're just factoring in your speed. Plenty of systems do this. Is the Puma system simply a pace / time over distance measurement?

Yes, Puma is a DOT measuring device which uses lasers, not radar.

I know the Cleartone/Puma system is also linked to the CANBUS system of Garda cars and reads their speed pulses also.

ironclaw

GM228 wrote: »

Yes, Puma is a DOT measuring device which uses lasers, not radar.

I know the Cleartone/Puma system is linked to the CANBUS system of Garda cars and reads their speed pulses also so perhaps that is why both vehicles are required to be moving?

Still doesn't answer the question as to why both vehicles have to be moving. Static laser is available (Vitronic Polyscan for example) and from inspection of Traffic Corp cars, there isn't any visible laser source assuming the laser is being used to measure distance between the car and the car in front.

Do you have a source for the use of laser? I'm not doubting you, I'd just rather read it for myself.

GM228

ironclaw wrote: »

Still doesn't answer the question as to why both vehicles have to be moving. Static laser is available (Vitronic Polyscan for example) and from inspection of Traffic Corp cars, there isn't any visible laser source assuming the laser is being used to measure distance between the car and the car in front.

Do you have a source for the use of laser? I'm not doubting you, I'd just rather read it for myself.

Edited my post*, there are no laser or radars which is why both vehicles are required to be moving.

*I ran this by my brother who is trained on them.

robbie99

GM228 wrote: »

It's not actually mentioned in the article what the issue is, but I know there is an issue flagged about ANPR use in relation to detection for motor tax purposes only as I already outlined, road traffic offences are not affected, see the author of the SBPs article tweet.

https://twitter.com/obraonain/status/858633077693849600

Ok, so with the tweet, the author is admitting to fake news! The article says that RT offences (incl. speeding & crossing continuous lines) have been dropped on the advice of the AG and then the author denies the whole point of the article by tweeting "no road traffic cases involved as RT legislation permits use of ANPR evidence".

GM228 wrote: »

Pretty much all traffic and parking offences are covered under legislation for ANPR use.

Here's an ANPR speed detection from yesterday.

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/861144986582212608

Just being picky now about this tweet, but it says that they'll be prosecuting for dangerous driving rather than for speeding. The gardai should be able to do this based on their own eyewitness testimony, without relying on the ANPR.

GM228

robbie99 wrote: »

Ok, so with the tweet, the author is admitting to fake news! The article says that RT offences (incl. speeding & crossing continuous lines) have been dropped on the advice of the AG and then the author denies the whole point of the article by tweeting "no road traffic cases involved as RT legislation permits use of ANPR evidence".

I can't view the article so can't comment on it, but the tweet would have been sent after the article went to print so perhaps he used his tweet to clarify the issue?

robbie99 wrote: »

Just being picky now about this tweet, but it says that they'll be prosecuting for dangerous driving rather than for speeding. The gardai should be able to do this based on their own eyewitness testimony, without relying on the ANPR.

They can, but the ANPR would be considered as prima facia proof of such including the speed.

The more evidence the better the chances of a successful prosecution.

punisher5112

I was pulled about 2 years ago in a vehicle which is limited to a set speed and was tol d I was doing 20km/h over what it was at.... Now I wasn't done but then I wasn't doing that speed either.

I was done another time where I was over by 10km/h but was done for doing 22km/h over but was thrown out as I could show wasn't doing it.

Mint Sauce

Sneaky Go Safe Van, slight turn and creast in the road, parked in a gap off the hard shoulder, meant did not see him till about 20-30 metres out. I thought they were suppose to be visable. Speedo was only a few kph over, so with tolerances, allowances, etc, am hoping should be okay, but still, sneaky spot I thought.

highdef

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Sneaky Go Safe Van, slight turn and creast in the road, parked in a gap off the hard shoulder, meant did not see him till about 20-30 metres out. I thought they were suppose to be visable. Speedo was only a few kph over, so with tolerances, allowances, etc, am hoping should be okay, but still, sneaky spot I thought.

Not visible actually makes so much more sense. Should help to catch those that decide to speed much better,

Mint Sauce

highdef wrote: »

Not visible actually makes so much more sense. Should help to catch those that decide to speed much better,

Cant argue too much there, as the limit is the limit, would still be pretty gutted for a few km over on a wide national road though. Over in a built up area now, no excuse if you are caught.

grogi

highdef wrote: »

Not visible actually makes so much more sense. Should help to catch those that decide to speed much better,

What is the purpose of speed enforcement? Catching those who speed or making people not speed at all?

Let's see...

If the vans are hidden, but very rare, people will keep speeding in hope they will not get cough. If the vans are visible, people will keep speeding except for the points where the van is parked.

If the vans/cameras are everywhere, regardless if they are visible or hidden, drivers will slow down. You won't speed if you are almost certain there is a camera hidden somewhere or if you see one...

To sum up - few vans make little difference to the overall speed on the roads... It makes perfect sense to hide them and generate some revenue in the process, because they don't achieve anything else... ;-)

Riva10

robbie99 wrote: »

Ok, so with the tweet, the author is admitting to fake news! The article says that RT offences (incl. speeding & crossing continuous lines) have been dropped on the advice of the AG and then the author denies the whole point of the article by tweeting "no road traffic cases involved as RT legislation permits use of ANPR evidence".



Just being picky now about this tweet, but it says that they'll be prosecuting for dangerous driving rather than for speeding. The gardai should be able to do this based on their own eyewitness testimony, without relying on the ANPR.

Hopefully the Gardaí's eyewitness testimony will be more reliable than their testimony during the Water protest evidence.

DanWall

khamilto wrote: »

God forbid we use statistics and evidence when setting policy or making an argument :rolleyes:

Speeding is speeding and walking is walking, yet again you're making faux-profound statements that are meaningful only to unimaginative gob****es.

Some motorway have 100 kph speed limits for no reason, ex about 10 km before arriving in to Cork it changes from 120 to 100 with no change in the road construction. There are lots of confusing speed limits all over the country. In the UK all motorway and dual carriageway s are 70mph, no need to put speed signs up because it's the same everywhere

Seth Brundle

DanWall wrote: »

Some motorway have 100 kph speed limits for no reason, ex about 10 km before arriving in to Cork it changes from 120 to 100 with no change in the road construction. There are lots of confusing speed limits all over the country. In the UK all motorway and dual carriageway s are 70mph, no need to put speed signs up because it's the same everywhere

Some motorways have lower speed limits due to peak traffic volumes, short distance between junctions or for lanes being more narrow, etc.
As for the UK, off the top of my head, the A1 in NI for example has a number of sections which have lower speed limits of 60mph because of crossing points.

mikeecho

DanWall wrote: »

Some motorway have 100 kph speed limits for no reason, ex about 10 km before arriving in to Cork it changes from 120 to 100 with no change in the road construction. There are lots of confusing speed limits all over the country. In the UK all motorway and dual carriageway s are 70mph, no need to put speed signs up because it's the same everywhere

Well, that stretch coming from glanmire to dunkettle interchange has some sweeping corners on declines/inclines.
Also you're coming you the end of the motorway, where there are regular tailback of standing traffic on weekday mornings, and on days that a big match is on.

No point in having traffic zooming down into a complete stop.

_Kaiser_

How effective are these vans at night in the rain?

Passed one tonight on the way home after just overtaking a line of cars on the motorway and didn't spot it until I was almost beside it Was more concerned with the road and traffic than the sneaky van parked on one of the ramps

Reckon I was about 10kmh over at the time

Old Perry

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

How effective are these vans at night in the rain?

Passed one tonight on the way home after just overtaking a line of cars on the motorway and didn't spot it until I was almost beside it Was more concerned with the road and traffic than the sneaky van parked on one of the ramps

Reckon I was about 10kmh over at the time

Cameras are infra red as far as I know so weather makes no difference unfortunately. .

highdef

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

How effective are these vans at night in the rain?

Passed one tonight on the way home after just overtaking a line of cars on the motorway and didn't spot it until I was almost beside it Was more concerned with the road and traffic than the sneaky van parked on one of the ramps

Reckon I was about 10kmh over at the time

Were you actually about 10kmh over the limit or were you 10kmh over, according to your speedo? If the latter, the over-reading of your speedo combined with the grace allowances generally given should mean that you will be fine.

If on a motorway, I'll assume that the speed limit was 120. If your speedo was reading 130, then you would probably have been traveling close to 120. That alone would make you alright however you can do a bit over 120 before you'll be nabbed. I don't know what the trigger speed would be however I wouldn't be surprised if you could do up to a real speed of 130 in a 120 zone and still not get done for it.....that would probably read as about 140 on the majority of speedometers. I've heard 10% over the limit (real speed, not speedometer indicated) being the grace amount given which would equate of you being able to do a real speed of 132kmh without being nabbed. If that figure is the case, getting caught should (in theory) be quite difficult to occur as long as you have some sort of reasonable awareness and observational skills.

_Kaiser_

highdef wrote: »

Were you actually about 10kmh over the limit or were you 10kmh over, according to your speedo? If the latter, the over-reading of your speedo combined with the grace allowances generally given should mean that you will be fine.

If on a motorway, I'll assume that the speed limit was 120. If your speedo was reading 130, then you would probably have been traveling close to 120. That alone would make you alright however you can do a bit over 120 before you'll be nabbed. I don't know what the trigger speed would be however I wouldn't be surprised if you could do up to a real speed of 130 in a 120 zone and still not get done for it.....that would probably read as about 140 on the majority of speedometers. I've heard 10% over the limit (real speed, not speedometer indicated) being the grace amount given which would equate of you being able to do a real speed of 132kmh without being nabbed. If that figure is the case, getting caught should (in theory) be quite difficult to occur as long as you have some sort of reasonable awareness and observational skills.

I'd say I was about 10 km/h in real terms over alright.

You know the scenario.. line of cars in the dark/rain all tailgating and kicking up spray with an empty lane on their right, so I moved out and overtook them all briskly and moved back in having left enough of a gap to the first one to not blind them with sudden wash of spray either (hate when people do that) - but as I was then slowing down I spotted the (very poor) reflective sticker on the van.

Oh well, wait and see I suppose.

statto25

What is the situation when a car is on UK plates folks? Pretty sure I was over when overtaking a car earlier and never spotted the Go Safe van.

Miike

statto25 wrote: »

What is the situation when a car is on UK plates folks? Pretty sure I was over when overtaking a car earlier and never spotted the Go Safe van.

EUCARIS system shares information now, as far as I'm aware. You'll get the same as the rest of us

statto25

Miike wrote: »

EUCARIS system shares information now, as far as I'm aware. You'll get the same as the rest of us

The car is an import going for VRT this week. Would be UK DVLA have my Irish information to administer points? I have no problem taking my punishment, just wondering what to expect.

Rubberchikken

If a driver is driving under or just under the limit and sees a speed van, why would someone 'brake suddenly'?

I agree with having these vans, don't agree with other drivers warning me that one is ahead. I drive under the limit. Plus personally think they should be unmarked. Also why there should be a site outlining where they are is plain silly.

Miike

statto25 wrote: »

The car is an import going for VRT this week. Would be UK DVLA have my Irish information to administer points? I have no problem taking my punishment, just wondering what to expect.

Is the car is registered to your Irish address, yip

statto25

Miike wrote: »

Is the car is registered to your Irish address, yip

I presume the dealer would have included that info when sending the export part of the V5 away. Ah well I'll know better next time

Seth Brundle

Rubberchikken wrote: »

If a driver is driving under or just under the limit and sees a speed van, why would someone 'brake suddenly'?

Because they are poor drivers who are unaware of the speed limit and/or their speed.

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Plus personally think they should be unmarked. Also why there should be a site outlining where they are is plain silly.

The fact that they're marked is so that people see them and therefore slow down. If drivers don't see them, they will forget or ignore the speed limit but if there is a garda presence (and I'm inlcuding the private vans) this will help keep drivers under the limit. Don't forget that the gardai have their own vans which are not marked like the private ones.
The website is to show drivers that on all of these dangerous stretches of road, there could be a speed van with the aim that drivers slow down. However, I'd say most people have not looked at the site since it's launch.

highdef

kbannon wrote: »

The fact that they're marked is so that people see them and therefore slow down. If drivers don't see them, they will forget or ignore the speed limit but if there is a garda presence (and I'm inlcuding the private vans) this will help keep drivers under the limit. .

I disagree. If drivers don't see the vans and get a fine (or multiple fines), I would say that would be a much better incentive to slow down in general and not just where you see marked vans. If everyone knew that they could be caught on any stretch of road anywhere in the country without knowing they've been caught, you can be pretty sure that speeding would become less prevalent.
This ridiculous set-up of advertising speed vans only helps to cause traffic problems due to gob****es slamming on the brakes causing brake light tailbacks, not to mention the inherent dangers of braking heavily on a what is likely to be a clear road. Just make the cameras as discreet as possible, completely invisible, ideally. After a few weeks or months of fines arriving in peoples postboxes all over the country, you can be pretty sure that we'd see a complete change in driving habits as hitting a driver in the pocket is the most painful thing to happen, not even mentioning the penalty points that would rack up fairly quickly.

In an ideal world, average speed cameras all over the place would be great too but I think that is for another thread.