Gardai operating 'gotcha' speed traps.

MugMugs

The limit is 60 and all it is is a big huge state cash cow.

Roger_007

Almaviva wrote: »

No. They would drive within the specified limits. Its only getting away with it that has Irish drivers with such poor discipline.

Ever driven in Sweden ? Try their 30 and 50 zones and see that it can be done - and is expected by other road users.

Everything is perfect in Sweden. We are only ordinary fallible humans

Spook_ie

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Yeah I know the spot, drivers from the airport and N1 are busy trying to cross each other to get in lane for North/Southbound M1 (without having to monitor speed as well). Absolute stupid place to have speedtraps.

Actually isn't that the idea. That junction has a lot of traffic changing lanes in a short distance therefore it needs a lower limit and a limit is to be enforced to ensure drivers stay within it

Iwannahurl

wil wrote: »

Now really I want to hurl.

Like I said: regurgitated guff.

wil wrote: »

Regulating speed by rules because some cant use common sense is fine, it whats we have to do. Misguidedly blaming everything on a single factor is as misguided as the flag carrier in front of the first vehicles, and is a dangerous practice. It excuses people to veer away from learning to drive as has been the way for decades and blindly, ignorantly and as we see here, so vehemently ignore all other real issues over a scapegoat one.
The training issue is only now slowly being resolved. but with these sort of attitudes, it is no wonder it is difficult for learners to know what is correct,

Man waving a flag blah blah blah.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61906455&postcount=22
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57768079&postcount=65
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64284631&postcount=110
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66345913&postcount=15

There's nobody I know who's seriously "blaming everything on a single factor". Speed is the most important factor to regulate, but it's not the only one.

As recurring Boards threads on the subject of speed illustrate, education and training for drivers can only do so much. That's why rigorous and persistent enforcement is needed: to change the behaviour of drivers that are too dumb or too stubborn to change their attitude.

Jimoslimos

Spook_ie wrote: »

Actually isn't that the idea. That junction has a lot of traffic changing lanes in a short distance therefore it needs a lower limit and a limit is to be enforced to ensure drivers stay within it

While that may be the idea it doesn't make it safer, as absurd as it might sound it is often safer to increase speed briefly to safely move into a gap rather than letting traffic undertake and then cut across on the left. Accidents occur not due to excessive speed but rather traffic travelling in close proximity and lane changing. Lower speed limits cause a concertina effect where traffic bunches up.

Failing a complete redesign of the junction, a safer (but expensive) solution would be to have lights between the two roundabouts allowing traffic from both the airport and N1/Coachman's Inn time to get in lane. But as always safety isn't the primary concern, revenue instead is.

Almaviva

Jimoslimos wrote: »

But as always safety isn't the primary concern, revenue instead is.

Where does such warped thinking come from

Grayditch

I got fined the first time I ever drove on that road. Now I slow down every time, but cars behind me lose the plot at me doing the speed limit there. It's a horrible section and it's really no fun to be aggressively tailed there.

Iwannahurl

wil wrote: »

Don't look for help if you are struggling to keep up with the lack of logic in your own arguments and please stop halfquoting me, my sentence didn't finish at "speed"

So, to repeat my question with the full quote included, in what country or countries do they not "place so much uninformed emphasis on speed as the cause of accidents"?

wil wrote: »

you listed a lot of road abuses, then blanket blamed speed, ignoring the list you just gave.

Nope, what I said was a lot of bad driving, such as that described in a previous post, is made a lot worse by excess speed, and that speed is the most important risk factor to be regulated.

wil wrote: »

Accident rates are often high at police checkpoints because drivers get distracted from proper driving and start over checking speedometers etc, forgetting to use mirrors, rearending other cars etc.

You don't say! Maybe there are even more fatalities? Let's have some evidence please, for your claim regarding the increased incidence of accidents at police checkpoints.

wil wrote: »

Just wondering, as you might know, can you get speedometer for horses, or how do you know how fast you are travelling?

Maybe what's needed is an altimeter.

Cooper Zealous Sabotage wrote: »

Rubbish straw man argument.

Really? So what do you think the bit in red means then?

ScumLord wrote: »

It's pretty difficult to do an unsafe speed at that junction in traffic. Bar being around pedestrians unsafe would mean the car is at it's limits and can no longer do what you ask it to do. That's not going to happen until you're closer to or well past 100kph.

Cooper Zealous Sabotage wrote: »

You would want to be a bit simple to rely solely on your speedometer for driving at a safe speed.

You'd want to be a bit simple, or perhaps just a sh:te driver, to believe that checking your speedometer is not a useful way to keep your speed within legal and appropriate limits.

Cooper Zealous Sabotage wrote: »

Your entire argument is based on the ASSUMPTION that one cannot drive safely UNLESS he/she knows what speed he/she is doing. It's not possible to know this all of the time, so by your flawed logic, nobody can drive safely.

What was that you said about rubbish straw man arguments?

Cooper Zealous Sabotage wrote: »

Your argument is bullshít, simple as. It's not that difficult to píss all over it...

I'm sure you have no difficulty p:ssing all over things.

Almaviva wrote: »

Catch as many people as possible. Points on the licence slow people down on all roads.

Excellent point. Good to see someone clearly understanding and explaining the purpose of road traffic legislation and its enforcement.

As the points accumulate, and the chances of being caught again increase, the tendency is towards more compliant behaviour.

It's not a guarantee, however. A key part of such a strategy is rigorous, persistent and high-visibility enforcement. Still not enough of it, in my view.

wil

Almaviva wrote: »

It is perfectly possible to do so. But people choose not to because the probablilty of being caught is slim to none. Up the 'gotcha' rate, and attitudes will change and people will realise they can drive withing the limit.

All you end up with is revenue and hatred of police while targeting the generally law-abiding who will pay for the real culprits. People on unpoliced secondary roads will continue to die while much safer dual carriageways will be taxed. Police will be no more loved and respected than clampers.
Single issue scapegoating is a good example of the short sighted lobbying that brought USA from one of the safest driving countries to way down the league with almost three times the death rate of the safest today.

Citing Sweden is actually a good example against your argument. There similar to the UK, the most consistently safe driving country over decades, they adopt multiple strategies and encourage a good self awareness and self policing discipline among their driving population.

You want to change attitudes in a very complex scenario, it is childish to think addressing a single issue will change that. Its like thinking the plastic bag tax will stop all littering

Iwannahurl

Roger_007 wrote: »

If you are a driver ask yourself two questions:
1. Have you ever exceeded any speed limit even marginally,
2. If you have, do you think you deserve a fine and penalty points for each time you have done.

Most, if not all, drivers will marginally exceed speed limits on a regular basis because it is a near-impossibility not to do so. It does not mean they are reckless or dangerous but by your logic they should all be off the road.

It is also a near-impossibility to carry out speed surveillance on most, if not all, drivers. Therefore the reality is that most, if not all, drivers will never be penalised even if they marginally exceed speed limits on a regular basis. The effect -- certainly the intent -- of enforcement is to increase compliance with speed limits and therefore keep average speed down. Inconsistent and sporadic enforcement was the norm in this country for a long time, and there is still not enough of it, with the result that many motorists habitually exceed the posted speed limit more than marginally. Speeding will probably never be eradicated, but it can be controlled better.

Almaviva wrote: »

Where does such warped thinking come from

It's standard self-serving justification for speeding the world over, I reckon. Hell hath no fury like a motorist nabbed by a speed camera. With the dishonourable exception of being clamped, of course.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Accidents occur not due to excessive speed but rather traffic travelling in close proximity and lane changing. Lower speed limits cause a concertina effect where traffic bunches up.

Are you saying that, in situations where a lot of lane-changing is required, traffic moving more slowly is (a) relatively more congested and (b) is therefore at higher risk of collision?

wil wrote: »

You want to change attitudes in a very complex scenario, it is childish to think addressing a single issue will change that. Its like thinking the plastic bag tax will stop all littering

The plastic bag levy massively decreased the use of disposable plastic bags, and by extension the proportion of plastic bags in litter and refuse.

Speed surveillance increases compliance with speed limits, and as a result tends to lower the average speed in areas where surveillance is regularly carried out, as well as having a 'halo' effect through the imposition of penalty points. The evidence is clear: because speed is the most important factor to regulate, speed cameras save lives. It's not the whole story in the area of road safety, but it is a crucial one.

wil

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It is also a near-impossibility to carry out speed surveillance on most, if not all, drivers. Therefore the reality is that most, if not all, drivers will never be penalised even if they marginally exceed speed limits on a regular basis. The effect -- certainly the intent -- of enforcement is to increase compliance with speed limits and therefore keep average speed down. Inconsistent and sporadic enforcement was the norm in this country for a long time, and there is still not enough of it, with the result that many motorists habitually exceed the posted speed limit more than marginally. Speeding will probably never be eradicated, but it can be controlled better.

It's standard self-serving justification for speeding the world over, I reckon. Hell hath no fury like a motorist nabbed by a speed camera. With the dishonourable exception of being clamped, of course.

Your arguments are all over the place now and becoming quite self serving. You discount statistics from the world authorities on the subject. I can see no evidence that you have any extensive experience of driving in other countries or real knowledge of the difference in attitudes representative of consistently safe driving nations. Ireland is a relatively young driving nation with a fairly lax attitude to rules overall. It has improved, not through harsh policing, that's still fairly adhoc, but starting from the beginning - the learner. You don't realise what a joke other countries thought of our previous attitude to learning. Also introducing a more structured responsibility system brought us in to the modern world of driving.

Targetting a single issue, which is NOT even the main issue, despite you repeating ad nauseum shows little comprehension of the problems. I and others cited many, you've ignored them, same as you probably do on the road. You driving poorly but below the limits with that attitude wont make you a much safer driver. Maybe if you took an advanced driving course with some real ADIs you might realise there's a lot more to driving than "speed"

Actually there is a forum for this discussion, not sure why it's in AH

Dostoevsky

Anybody know how much the state is taking in from all these motoring penalty points and other non-penalty point charges such as fines for parking at a bus stop?

I hope it's getting all the money and not subcontracting the process out to some private firm as usually happens

Stabshauptmann

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wait until they use the existing M50 cameras as average speed cameras

Or hook up the toll cameras to motortax.ie / insurance

Hands up, I speed. I will be the first to suffer from this. But I think its a good idea

Iwannahurl

wil wrote: »

You discount statistics from the world authorities on the subject.

... you've ignored them, same as you probably do on the road. You driving poorly but below the limits with that attitude wont make you a much safer driver.

I know this is AH and all, but what are you talking about?

What statistics? Which world authorities?

And what could you possibly know about my driving?

Still waiting for you to answer this question: in what country or countries do they not "place so much uninformed emphasis on speed as the cause of accidents"?

wil wrote: »

Having learned and driven on the most consistently safe roads in the world, I place more faith in their generations of much researched stats, and funnily enough they also don't place so much uninformed emphasis on speed as the cause of accidents.

Stabshauptmann

Aineoil wrote: »

Something got lost in translation here, I charge you for my wealth of driving experience.

And as a co-driver, I will be in a position to remind you of the aforesaid cows and pedestrians.
Now, wait, I never mentioned the cyclists....

I can't believe I forgot cyclists

GArdai didn't. Gotcha operation in town earlier to nab cyclists breaking lights on

HurtLocker

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Hands up, I speed. I will be the first to suffer from this. But I think its a good idea

Motorways are the safest roads in the country. I think its less than 2% of accidents occur on them. Id agree with cameras on a series of dangerous bends but average times on motorways would be evil! I dont see how it could be introduced when the garda position on enforcement is " sections of roads where people have died". Effectively monitoring the safest roads the harshest wouldn't sit well with most people. The whole Dublin-Cork (M7) has no gatso camera locations after Naas (handy fact to know ) and if you sign up to @GardaCork itll tell you if there are hand guns in operation near the end of the motorway in Cork. Thats a huge strip with a safe history, monitoring it with average speed would be unfair on motorist. I know some people on here with zero tolerance opinions disagree :rolleyes: Whats new? If theyd their way they'd put GPS in every car and Id be off the road in a week :pac:

Most people also have no problem with reasonable speed enforcement. I and many people I know thought it was a joke how many guards set up speed traps in good weather. They should be out in the sh*t weather when driving conditions are sh*t not just in dry perfect condition roads and sunny weather. Id rather they focused on drink driving and learner drivers then. But currently a person with zero experience driving alone in icy conditions in commuter traffic is less off an offence than going 5km/h over the limit with a full licence on an empty motorway with perfect conditions

wil

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Anybody know how much the state is taking in from all these motoring penalty points and other non-penalty point charges such as fines for parking at a bus stop?

I hope it's getting all the money and not subcontracting the process out to some private firm as usually happens

A very valid question. I never saw any figures and any time I hear spokespersons citing the number of people caught for difference offences, my scepticism rises.
On any day, I could point out on one street, dozens of road safety offences, that are a risk to life, nothing to do with excess speed that are completely ignored by both drivers and police and yet most of them if enforced would also get you points on your licence.
This is where we differ significantly to our nearest neighbours. Even young people will pick up on each others driving transgressions and positively reinforce good driving. Its such a cultural shock to see it in action. Ireland has a way to go before that is more the norm. We tend to excuse and make excuses for poor driving and this reinforces some very bad habits on our roads.
It is possible to categorise types of problem drivers in the UK, but poor driving here tends to be scattered across all types. As inherently poor driving due to lack of training gradually reduces, then it may become easier to target specific problem areas.

As for parking in a bus stop, fines for this in Dublin anyway seem to be solely enforced by the clampers, a private company which is apparently losing money.

zenno

Ye can't win either way.

I fecking hate the idea of getting fined for going over the speed limit and luckily i haven't got a speeding ticket ever in the 6 years of driving as i always stick to the limit.

But in saying this, i have had cars/vans small trucks tailgate me very close behind and beep me like crazy because of this and they overtake me erratically and look at me shouting and swearing while they are not looking at the road in front of them and this is dangerous in a big way. It doesn't bother me too much though but what they are doing is very dangerous.

What i am saying is that the RSA think that having folks driving at a certain speed limit (of which would be too slow for a certain road) will cut down on accident's, but in reality it is causing accidents from people that go nuts with you when you stick to the speed limit, and there are many dangerous sh!ts out there.

Ray Palmer

Are all the drivers that are defending speeding also considering that cyclist breaking lights are not dangerous?
There are often discussions where people boil down what a cyclist does is either against the rules of the road or not and it is that simple. Safety of the issue is not the concern it is just about obeying the rules. Cars driving into Dublin and through the housing estates all speed. 30km speed limit is not observed. I certainly don't expect these drivers to be obeying the speed limit elsewhere. It isn't whether you speed it is about when you will be caught and complaining about that is a bit pathetic. Drive at or below the speed limit and it won't happen.

My understanding is that people who break the speed limit in one place will do it elsewhere too. So they catch people where it is easier to catch them rather than try to catch them on lesser used roads.

There is technology about that could be used but the public will get outraged. There was a massive outcry when they suggested checking tax discs via cameras. I think they even stopped the plans as a result.

danniemcq

Years ago on the way to Dublin with my Ma she started cursing that the garda car behind her wasn't overtaking her. I looked up and seen the lights flashing like crazy and asked how long it had been behind her.

Turns out we were involved in a fairly slow chase for about 5 minutes after she went through one of those "towns" that are 3 houses at a junction where the speed limit went from 60-30 for about 100m before going back up to 60.

She hadn't noticed the speed limit change, the garda or anything else and pissed the Garda off quite badly doing it! She got a fine but can't remember what it was (it was over 18 years ago) but i remember her being ragin!

HurtLocker

zenno wrote: »

Ye can't win either way.

I fecking hate the idea of getting fined for going over the speed limit and luckily i haven't got a speeding ticket ever in the 6 years of driving as i always stick to the limit.

But in saying this, i have had cars/vans small trucks tailgate me very close behind and beep me like crazy because of this and they overtake me erratically and look at me shouting and swearing while they are not looking at the road in front of them and this is dangerous in a big way. It doesn't bother me too much though but what they are doing is very dangerous.

What i am saying is that the RSA think that having folks driving at a certain speed limit (of which would be too slow for a certain road) will cut down on accident's, but in reality it is causing accidents from people that go nuts with you when you stick to the speed limit, and there are many dangerous sh!ts out there.

One of the first lessons I was taught was never be first in a convoy and preferable not last. Unless its a gatso van which are very rare for me and I know the roads they are on, it'll be a machine operated manually by the guards. It's the person in front who gets the fine. Many people like me have no problem driving behind a speeder.

hoodwinked

Almaviva wrote: »

Where does such warped thinking come from

its completely about revenue, a few weeks back we were coming to Cork from killarney, there was a Gaa match on between the two counties in Killarney so we left about 20 minutes before it ended to avoid traffic,

on the way back to cork we passed one speed van parked in killarney, one heading in the killarney direction, and another speed van just parking up by farran, on the main route match traffic would be taking

you tell me that was not a revenue collection where they knew a high volume of traffic was going to be.

Red Nissan

HurtLocker wrote: »

One of the first lessons I was taught was never be first in a convoy and preferable not last. Unless its a gatso van which are very rare for me and I know the roads they are on, it'll be a machine operated manually by the guards. It's the person in front who gets the fine. Many people like me have no problem driving behind a speeder.

Good tip, I go so far as to pull over, as IMO too many fellow motorist know this trick and it leads to stupidly massive tail-gating. I even had three cars pull over with me one day, so blindly were they following me.

shane9689

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

The guards are there to enforce the law...The speed limit is the law, going over it is against the law, so they are doing their job's...now I do agree that the speed limits are too low in places, but that's to combat the army of terrible drivers we have on the roads, from my experience on the road, at least 25% of people who drive should never be let near a road...

thats what the driving test is for then, if there are unsafe drivers then that means the test and the way its setup is flawed, making the speed limits flawed too isnt really the best solution

stevedublin

shane9689 wrote: »

thats what the driving test is for then, if there are unsafe drivers then that means the test and the way its setup is flawed, making the speed limits flawed too isnt really the best solution

The driving test can only monitor how well people drive when they are taking the test. Once drivers pass it, the driving test cannot monitor how they drive afterwards.

ScumLord

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What does the bit in red imply then?

What I said.

That's not going to happen until you're closer to or well past 100kph.

You say.

So it's uniformly "safe" up to 100 km/h and then it's suddenly not safe?

You've read one thing and assumed another.

HurtLocker

hoodwinked wrote: »

its completely about revenue, a few weeks back we were coming to Cork from killarney, there was a Gaa match on between the two counties in Killarney so we left about 20 minutes before it ended to avoid traffic,

on the way back to cork we passed one speed van parked in killarney, one heading in the killarney direction, and another speed van just parking up by farran, on the main route match traffic would be taking

you tell me that was not a revenue collection where they knew a high volume of traffic was going to be.

The company who runs them are in loss and they've less than 2 years left on their contract expect way more of this.

EdCastle

And so the long and short of it all is...

If your a law abiding citizen, pay attention and obey the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about.

On the other hand If you go around breaking the speed limits, (ie break the law), then you will eventually be caught out and pay the price.....I have absolutely no problem with that. I go to the effort of obeying the speed limits then other road users should also, the speed limits aren't there for a laugh, they are there to protect road users and pedestrians.

If it is all about revenue....even better! People who break the law should be made pay debts back to society....the more the better IMO.

Iwannahurl

ScumLord wrote: »

It's pretty difficult to do an unsafe speed at that junction in traffic. Bar being around pedestrians unsafe would mean the car is at it's limits and can no longer do what you ask it to do. That's not going to happen until you're closer to or well past 100kph.

Question from me (regarding the issue of "safe" driving): what does that imply?

'Answer' from you:'

ScumLord wrote: »

What I said.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o8mYE8YOj7Y/UB7Gonf1shI/AAAAAAAACIc/hfzprMaZnrw/s1600/calling-bull****.gif

ScumLord

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Question from me (regarding the issue of "safe" driving): what does that imply?

It doesn't imply anything, it means what it says. An unsafe speed would be one where you can't control the car anymore. Breaking a speed limit doesn't automatically mean the car has become unsafe.

wil

EdCastle wrote: »

And so the long and short of it all is...

If your a law abiding citizen, pay attention and obey the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about.

On the other hand If you go around breaking the speed limits, (ie break the law), then you will eventually be caught out and pay the price.....I have absolutely no problem with that. I go to the effort of obeying the speed limits then other road users should also, the speed limits aren't there for a laugh, they are there to protect road users and pedestrians.

If it is all about revenue....even better! People who break the law should be made pay debts back to society....the more the better IMO.

I agree with what you say in principle, but it's far more complicated. I am going to apparently contradict myself at many points because that is how it is, one single rule cant apply to every different situation. that is the problem with speed limits as applied to so many types of roads with so many varying circumstances and conditions.
I don't advocate breaking limits but I do advocate changing those limits where they are just wrong and there just for planning or revenue with little consideration towards safety and traffic.
Who sets these limits - road engineers, planning / council lobbyists, many are long connected to easy rezoning.
They should be set by safety engineers and them alone.

Some of the worst drivers on our roads are those who think they are safe just because the don't break speed limits. Yet they break almost every other rule of the road with impunity, and never even get a warning for it. But they are the first to blame speeding. They'd reverse over you with a smile and a wave of their phone.

That is what I have the biggest problem with, blinkered blanket blaming of "speeding" for all the woes on our roads. It is the goto scapegoat of the uneducated and ignorant and it frightens their horses.

Put relative speed,, inappropriate speed and excess speed in to the sentence and you show you have some understanding of the subject.
That's why I tend to put "speeding" in quotes as it's become a meaningless tautology.
Pay as much attention to the other equally important rules of the road and then issues with excess speed become more apparent and more easily addressed.
If people could stick to their own side of the road, accidents could be halved overnight.
Change attitudes to self policing of your own driving and responsibility for you own driving and you positively reinforce good driving behaviour for generations to come.

EyeSight

EdCastle wrote: »

And so the long and short of it all is...

If your a law abiding citizen, pay attention and obey the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about.

On the other hand If you go around breaking the speed limits, (ie break the law), then you will eventually be caught out and pay the price.....I have absolutely no problem with that. I go to the effort of obeying the speed limits then other road users should also, the speed limits aren't there for a laugh, they are there to protect road users and pedestrians.

If it is all about revenue....even better! People who break the law should be made pay debts back to society....the more the better IMO.

I would much rather the guards focus on catching drug dealers and burglars. You cannot deny that the focus of them is more on the revenue generating traffic violations.
I still think the roads need policing, but i am very unhappy with how we focus the resources

Ray Palmer

hoodwinked wrote: »

its completely about revenue, a few weeks back we were coming to Cork from killarney, there was a Gaa match on between the two counties in Killarney so we left about 20 minutes before it ended to avoid traffic,

on the way back to cork we passed one speed van parked in killarney, one heading in the killarney direction, and another speed van just parking up by farran, on the main route match traffic would be taking

you tell me that was not a revenue collection where they knew a high volume of traffic was going to be.

Or maybe to keep a large number of people safe! If there is masses of traffic speeding then the risk is higher of an accident. :eek:

Easy way to avoid such fines. Stick to the speed limit

hoodwinked

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Or maybe to keep a large number of people safe! If there is masses of traffic speeding then the risk is higher of an accident. :eek:

Easy way to avoid such fines. Stick to the speed limit

if it was about safety there would have been Gardaí there as opposed to speed vans parked up, they were clearly targeting an event where they knew they would have a greater chance to catch out motorists, 3 vans was over the top,


its easy to say "stick to the speed limit, avoid fines" but as someone who does stick to the limit, i am still disgusted at this blatant attempt to make some money by targeting specific places at specific times,

Valetta

hoodwinked wrote: »

if it was about safety there would have been Gardaí there as opposed to speed vans parked up, they were clearly targeting an event where they knew they would have a greater chance to catch out motorists, 3 vans was over the top,


its easy to say "stick to the speed limit, avoid fines" but as someone who does stick to the limit, i am still disgusted at this blatant attempt to make some money by targeting specific places at specific times,

Are they not targeting specific drivers, rather thatn an event or places?

Ray Palmer

hoodwinked wrote: »

if it was about safety there would have been Gardaí there as opposed to speed vans parked up, they were clearly targeting an event where they knew they would have a greater chance to catch out motorists, 3 vans was over the top,


its easy to say "stick to the speed limit, avoid fines" but as someone who does stick to the limit, i am still disgusted at this blatant attempt to make some money by targeting specific places at specific times,

A speed van does deter people from speeding so why would they need more guards to get the message across?

Targeting places at specific times makes complete sense. How else do you think they should do it? Yes targeting the most people who are speeding. Anybody who speeds speeds everywhere they are just getting caught at easier points.

I doubt anybody who gets a speeding fine just happens to have been speeding that one time in that one place. After the first fine they very may well slow down everywhere. Fear of being caught remains the biggest deterrent to offenses and will always remain that way due to human nature.

wil

HurtLocker wrote: »

One of the first lessons I was taught was never be first in a convoy and preferable not last. Unless its a gatso van which are very rare for me and I know the roads they are on, it'll be a machine operated manually by the guards. It's the person in front who gets the fine. Many people like me have no problem driving behind a speeder.

I know what you are saying but if this was the focus from your instructor early in your lessons, it shows exactly how bad the instructors used to be before they became regulated.:o

Anyway I wouldn't rely on that strategy. A UK constable told me some of them like to play snooker. First get a red then a colour. Kills the boredom of traffic duty I suppose.
Also said speeding tickets have the easiest paperwork so that's a big reason for issuing them. Freely admitted most of the cameras were just for revenue. In fact over the last few years many cameras are being switched off as they didn't seem to be having the desired effect. So as I said, it is far more complicated than the simplistic view of "speeding"

Spook_ie

Jimoslimos wrote: »

While that may be the idea it doesn't make it safer, as absurd as it might sound it is often safer to increase speed briefly to safely move into a gap rather than letting traffic undertake and then cut across on the left. Accidents occur not due to excessive speed but rather traffic travelling in close proximity and lane changing. Lower speed limits cause a concertina effect where traffic bunches up.

Failing a complete redesign of the junction, a safer (but expensive) solution would be to have lights between the two roundabouts allowing traffic from both the airport and N1/Coachman's Inn time to get in lane. But as always safety isn't the primary concern, revenue instead is.

And as absurd as it might sound, you can actually slow down to merge and help people merge, the limit is 60Kph to account for traffic manoeuvrings over a short distance that might entail crossing from lane 1 to lane 3 and vice versa, it's bad enough with people undertaking without having to account for idiots wanting to do a 100 coming up to a traffic light controlled RAB

onslow_murphy

got done at the weekend , told the guard we don't all have haddington road agreements to protect our salaries - pensions and that he was busy collecting for a hungary government , my 80 euro doesn't come free , they should expect a little lip

Valetta

onslow_murphy wrote: »

got done at the weekend , told the guard we don't all have haddington road agreements to protect our salaries - pensions and that he was busy collecting for a hungary government , my 80 euro doesn't come free , they should expect a little lip

Well done you.

Every little helps in our fight against..... what exactly? :rolleyes:

hoodwinked

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A speed van does deter people from speeding so why would they need more guards to get the message across?

Targeting places at specific times makes complete sense. How else do you think they should do it? Yes targeting the most people who are speeding. Anybody who speeds speeds everywhere they are just getting caught at easier points.

I doubt anybody who gets a speeding fine just happens to have been speeding that one time in that one place. After the first fine they very may well slow down everywhere. Fear of being caught remains the biggest deterrent to offenses and will always remain that way due to human nature.

i meant if it was for safety reasons the vans were there, surely having gardai on hand would have been a better option if it was road safety and crashes they were worried about?

i don't think its fair to target one steady stream of traffic no, i would rather those vans were parked in well known accident blackspots where speed is actually a killer than this "ooo higher volumes of traffic, i know its a safe part of the road but lets go for it"

truth is it has become a money making racket and i for one would rather see these vans slowing down the maniacs flying past me on narrow country roads than on a wide main road with an overtaking lane,

maniac2000

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you elaborate a bit on your logic there? Was your speed over the limit, and how do you know it was a "safe speed"?

The speed limit is 60 on that particular stretch.. Frequented by Gardai a lot over the years and I think it is listed as a speed check zone on the Garda website.... I could be mistaken tho

Iwannahurl

ScumLord wrote: »

It doesn't imply anything, it means what it says. An unsafe speed would be one where you can't control the car anymore. Breaking a speed limit doesn't automatically mean the car has become unsafe.

So according to your understanding of the relationship between speed and road safety, driving faster than the posted speed limit only becomes less safe at the point where drivers can no longer control their car?

Am I reading you correctly on that point?

If so, are you saying that driving faster than the speed limit is inherently no less safe than driving at or below the speed limit, unless and until you reach a speed at which you can no longer control your vehicle?

Ray Palmer

hoodwinked wrote: »

i meant if it was for safety reasons the vans were there, surely having gardai on hand would have been a better option if it was road safety and crashes they were worried about?

i don't think its fair to target one steady stream of traffic no, i would rather those vans were parked in well known accident blackspots where speed is actually a killer than this "ooo higher volumes of traffic, i know its a safe part of the road but lets go for it"

truth is it has become a money making racket and i for one would rather see these vans slowing down the maniacs flying past me on narrow country roads than on a wide main road with an overtaking lane,

You don't get it do you?
Speed the biggest killer on the road. Speed van slows people. Extra guards wouldn't do it but the van does. Speed checking easier and quicker in the van.So no more guards would not be more effective.

What has fair got to do with it speeding is dangerous, more cars speeding in a steady line of traffic more dangerous.

If you claim speeding is a money making scam prove it with figures. They say the same thing in the UK and it doesn't generate money but cost money. I would say the same is probably true here.

hoodwinked

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What has fair got to do with it speeding is dangerous, more cars speeding in a steady line of traffic more dangerous.

i disagree, i would say a car speeding down a narrow country road is more dangerous, in a steady line of traffic its more to do with keeping a safe distance behind the car in front so should they slam on their brakes you too have a sufficient breaking distance, while speeding on a narrow country road you have a greater risk of blind corners and oncoming traffic unable to move to avoid you,

Iwannahurl

wil wrote: »

That is what I have the biggest problem with, blinkered blanket blaming of "speeding" for all the woes on our roads. It is the goto scapegoat of the uneducated and ignorant and it frightens their horses

I guess we're being invited to conclude that you're numbered among the ranks of the educated and the wise on this subject.

Why therefore am I still waiting for you to enlighten me with regard to some simple questions?

wil wrote: »

statistics from the world authorities on the subject.

wil wrote: »

Having learned and driven on the most consistently safe roads in the world, I place more faith in their generations of much researched stats, and funnily enough they also don't place so much uninformed emphasis on speed as the cause of accidents.

What statistics? Which world authorities?

In what country or countries do they not "place so much uninformed emphasis on speed as the cause of accidents"?

ScumLord

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So according to your understanding of the relationship between speed and road safety, driving faster than the posted speed limit only becomes less safe at the point where drivers can no longer control their car?

Am I reading you correctly on that point?

If so, are you saying that driving faster than the speed limit is inherently no less safe than driving at or below the speed limit, unless and until you reach a speed at which you can no longer control your vehicle?

We were talking specifically about a low speed limit of 50 - 60klm. Breaking those speed limits isn't going to make your car unsafe (bar in a pedestrian area), I added that you'd need to be up near 100klm or even more (it all depends, there is no arbitrary speed at which ever car becomes unstable) before you could say your car is even becoming unsafe.

Modern cars with traction control, ABS and the likes makes cars very safe at low speeds going just over the speed limit means you're breaking the law not driving dangerously.

Iwannahurl

ScumLord wrote: »

We were talking specifically about a low speed limit of 50 - 60klm. Breaking those speed limits isn't going to make your car unsafe (bar in a pedestrian area), I added that you'd need to be up near 100klm or even more (it all depends, there is no arbitrary speed at which ever car becomes unstable) before you could say your car is even becoming unsafe.

Modern cars with traction control, ABS and the likes makes cars very safe at low speeds going just over the speed limit means you're breaking the law not driving dangerously.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why rigorous and persistent enforcement is needed.

It is utterly pointless trying to educate the generality of motorists about the concept of relative risk with regard to speed, so I say just cut to the chase and hammer speed limit breakers with a fine and penalty points. They may never understand the fundamental realities, even after a speed awareness course, but they will understand when their pocket is hit hard and they're in danger of losing their licence and so may change their behaviour even if their attitude stays the same.

That said, maybe educational videos like this one do have a role to play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpZRxo3EWAc

HurtLocker

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why rigorous and persistent enforcement is needed.

It is utterly pointless trying to educate the generality of motorists about the concept of relative risk with regard to speed, so I say just cut to the chase and hammer speed limit breakers with a fine and penalty points. They may never understand the fundamental realities, even after a speed awareness course, but they will understand when their pocket is hit hard and they're in danger of losing their licence and so may change their behaviour even if their attitude stays the same.

That said, maybe educational videos like this one do have a role to play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpZRxo3EWAc

Every speed camera thread goes like this now. You must get bored eventually? All talk of what is reasonable enforcement is killed with this zero tolerance crap.

Iwannahurl

HurtLocker wrote: »

Every speed camera thread goes like this now. You must get bored eventually? All talk of what is reasonable enforcement is killed with this zero tolerance crap.

What do you want, a free pass for all the regurgitated guff about speed, speed cameras and enforcement?