Now a THIRD GoSafe van is torched

Amtmann

See here. That's the third one set alight. They've now been vandalised in Wexford, Louth and Donegal.

Is this the work of three sociopaths or just one wide-ranging sociopath? I understand the frustration at being caught speeding by one of these vans, but to actually destroy one goes beyond criminal behaviour. What is the cost-benefit analysis of the action from the arsonist's point of view? Surely there cannot really be one.

-Chris-

Quick note: it is NOT ok to say things like "burn them all", "pity they didn't get the guy inside too" or anything like that. Posts advocating violence or criminal damage will lead to bans.

PeakOutput

Tremelo wrote: »

See here. That's the third one set alight. They've now been vandalised in Wexford, Louth and Donegal.

Is this the work of three sociopaths or just one wide-ranging sociopath? I understand the frustration at being caught speeding by one of these vans, but to actually destroy one goes beyond criminal behaviour. What is the cost-benefit analysis of the action from the arsonist's point of view? Surely there cannot really be one.

until now i didnt think it was an organised attack but 3 in relatively quick succession is pretty suspect alright

it could be the same person alright and if that is the case I would say the motivation is simple a high profile target for a arsonist. he probably believes that because people hate the idea of the vans they will condone the burning of them and he will get some sort of support (which may or may not be true)

L1011

There has to be a point where their insurance will become untenable at this rate?

Cookie_Monster

although I'd never condone it as people could get hurt I can't help smiling a little whenever I hear about one of them going up.

You can kind of expect that kind of backlash when the gov start to privatise law enforcement.

2qk4u

We dont like penalty points and fines or the sneaky way they try catch us but an arson attack on one of these vans with an employee inside is attempted murder in my opinion and if someone is caught they should be punished accordingly .

NIMAN

I drove past this burnt out van yesterday and I couldnt believe it - mindless thugs.

If something thinks its smart or the right thing to do to set light to a van while someone is inside then it shows their mentality. If the law catches up with them I hope they are dealt with properly and get punished heavily for it. Its all a laugh until someone suffers serious burns, or worse.

And slightly embarrassed that some (if not many) would condone this in Donegal, after all we have been through with road deaths. There is a lawless element on our roads up here who want to drive how they feel with no concern for others.

couldntthink

I would shake the persons hand and give him a lend of a lighter if he needed it. However it is wrong to set them alight if there is someone in it, afterall he's just doing his job, but I do class the operators in the same league as traffic wardens.

I think it is wrong to privatise any form of law enforcement.

Also, there are just as many accidents caused by people who drive too slow, it's high time these incompetent "motorists" were targeted too.

Amtmann

I just want to point out that law enforcement has not been privatised here. The GoSafe vans simply report speeding to the police. It is then up to the police to take action, i.e. to enforce the law.

-Chris-

-Chris- wrote: »

Quick note: it is NOT ok to say things like "burn them all", "pity they didn't get the guy inside too" or anything like that. Posts advocating violence or criminal damage will lead to bans.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

...I can't help smiling a little whenever I hear about one of them going up.

couldntthink wrote: »

I would shake the persons hand and give him a lend of a lighter if he needed it...

These posts = not ok (or very, very borderline).

More posts like these = infraction/ban.

Is that simple enough for everyone??

corktina

what ever people may say on the Internet, reduce speed and you reduce the severity of accidents.
The point of these vans is to educate drivers to drive slower. If the point of them is Tax Revenue (and Lord knows we need it from every possible source), then isnt that a bit self defeating to use a source where the take will be decreasing as people wise-up?

Only a matter of time now until speed limits are reduced further as oil prices rise....

CiaranC

Theres a line where people just wont take this crap off the state. I guess these mobile spy cams crossed it.

monument

CiaranC wrote: »

Theres a line where people just wont take this crap off the state. I guess these mobile spy cams crossed it.

You should be ashamed of your self.

Yet another case of attempted murder and you are again in a roundabout way defending the attack. You previous posted the clip from Clerks which makes out that contractors know the risks, referring to independent contractors the video ends in "if they got kill, it's their own fault..."

Take a step back and try to remember there's actually another human in the van.

fly_agaric

IMO it gives the lie to alot of the ostentatious grief every time there's a bad accident involving speeding on rural roads.

Some people really, really love speeding on these roads and get murderously angry if their "rights" to do so without getting penalty points/fines/bannings etc are in jeopordy!

BrianD

I'm beginning to think that these are possibly the actions of vested interests who are keen on having their movements captured by ANPR.

Speed cameras annoy us all but it takes some mind set to embark on the course of action to destroy one. Man passes van, man goes home gets petrol and returns to scene to torch van. Is this the work of ordinary Joe Soaps? "Where are you going with the can of petrol, honey? Tea is ready" - "Just going out to fill up the lawnmower".

I'm not sure if we are seeing random acts of badness here. Could it be more organised?

Cookie_Monster

-Chris- wrote: »

These posts = not ok (or very, very borderline).

More posts like these = infraction/ban.

Is that simple enough for everyone??

Why are you only picking part of that comment of mine, placing it well out of context? It's mis-representative of what I said in the earlier part of the post

To repeat for clarify:
(although) I'd never condone it as people could get hurt...

Rodin

They were a bad idea anyway

SPECS cameras are yer only man

L1011

Rodin wrote: »

They were a bad idea anyway

SPECS cameras are yer only man

SPECS cameras are immobile; that's the reason they used vans instead.

Rodin

MYOB wrote: »

SPECS cameras are immobile; that's the reason they used vans instead.

Thats the point. Just put them in a particular place. They're guaranteed to slow traffic down.

Mr. Presentable

Every time they burn one of these gets closer to the time they burn a person doing their job. Anyone, however circuituously, who supports these activities has no place in civilised society

-Chris-

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why are you only picking part of that comment of mine, placing it well out of context? It's mis-representative of what I said in the earlier part of the post

To repeat for clarify:
(although) I'd never condone it as people could get hurt...

OK, when I read:

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

although I'd never condone it as people could get hurt I can't help smiling a little whenever I hear about one of them going up.

I understood it to mean "I'd never advise someone to set a van on fire that probably had someone inside, but I can't help smiling a little whenever I hear about a van with someone inside being set on fire".

To be honest, I don't see what other meaning it could possibly have, but maybe I took it up wrong, in which case I apologise.


Anyhoo...

It's a mod instruction, and you know well enough by now not to question a mod instruction on-thread because it takes the thread off topic (as it has now), and that if you have an issue with any moderation decision you should take it to PM.

Thanks.

Judgement Day

couldntthink wrote: »

I would shake the persons hand and give him a lend of a lighter if he needed it. However it is wrong to set them alight if there is someone in it, afterall he's just doing his job, but I do class the operators in the same league as traffic wardens.

I think it is wrong to privatise any form of law enforcement.

Also, there are just as many accidents caused by people who drive too slow, it's high time these incompetent "motorists" were targeted too.

With your attitude I shouldn't think that you approve of any form of law enforcement, so don't be shy in admitting it.

thebullkf

-Chris- wrote: »

These posts = not ok (or very, very borderline).

More posts like these = infraction/ban.

Is that simple enough for everyone??

so are we only allowed show disdain for the burning?

Or can one voice their agreement to it?

howiya

thebullkf wrote: »

so are we only allowed show disdain for the burning?

Or can one voice their agreement to it?

I don't see why you would want to agree with burning people's property

invinciblePRSTV

You have to love the great Irish public. Bankrupt the state and they'll lie down, accept it, and meekly vote in politicians who are more of the same, but introduce some new speed camera's and suddenly we get a campaign of civil disobedience/mindless violence expressing their dissatisfaction with them.

What a country.

thebullkf

howiya wrote: »

I don't see why you would want to agree with burning people's property

i don't.

I was looking forclarification, if we're only allowed voice one opinion though i have a problem with that- don't you?

thebullkf

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

You have to love the great Irish public. Bankrupt the state and they'll lie down, accept it, and meekly vote in politicians who are more of the same, but introduce some new speed camera's and suddenly we get a campaign of civil disobedience/mindless violence expressing their dissatisfaction with them.

What a country.

i agree, disgraceful really- i'd do something about it if i wasn't so apathetic:p

Seriously though, i'm actually amazed there hasn't been more outcry..
I don't agree with the van burning bit, but i don't agree with the vans either. usually placed in revenue raising areas,not the real accident blackspots.

Amtmann

I'm amazed at the ire some people feel for these vans. As an almost daily user of the N24 (one of the most statistically dangerous routes in the country) I like to see the vans parked up. They just might deter some reckless fool from smashing into me head-on.

Rodin

thebullkf wrote: »

i agree, disgraceful really- i'd do something about it if i wasn't so apathetic:p

Seriously though, i'm actually amazed there hasn't been more outcry..
I don't agree with the van burning bit, but i don't agree with the vans either. usually placed in revenue raising areas,not the real accident blackspots.

and the real reason why we had gardai in ditches and not specs cameras

howiya

thebullkf wrote: »

i don't.

I was looking forclarification, if we're only allowed voice one opinion though i have a problem with that- don't you?

The opinion we seem to be allowed voice is in agreement with my opinion so i'm ok with it

-Chris-

thebullkf wrote: »

so are we only allowed show disdain for the burning?

Or can one voice their agreement to it?

I would think the best place to draw the line is:

It's ok to like the vans and what they're achieving.
It's ok to hate the vans and what they represent.
It's not ok to condone criminal damage and possible manslaughter, whether we agree with what the person was doing at the time or not.


This next bit is not aimed at you thebullkf...

Seriously, that's someone's son or daughter operating that van.
You can rail all you like about the positioning of the vans, whether they're safety related or just revenue collectors, how much tolerance they should have before they issue a fine...
I don't see how anyone can justify the malicious burning of someone's vehicle/place of work and I worry about what would happen if next time it occurs there's a fatality and a grieving family member happens across some of the posts here where people gloat about these attacks.

You don't think I'd allow a thread/post that said it was ok to run over Gardai, beat up clampers or set fire to tax inspectors, do you? Why would this be any different?


Anyway, apologies for going off topic again, and I hope everyone realises these questions are rhetorical - this request stands (although I'm more than happy to explain my thinking on-thread) and arguing against it will just take the thread off topic.

Thanks