Go safe vans .... Go Bang!!!!

Gosub

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Go Safe is a private company, why is it a shock that they are making a profit? They aren't going to operate on the basis of doing something good, they're in it for the money. But turning a profit doesn't link to detecting speeding motorists as the cash cow.

They are contracted to log X amount of hours per week and crucially paid by the hour and not by detection. Therefore if they didn't detect anyone speeding they still get paid meaning that detecting a motorist speeding is irelevant to them making a profit.

Yes, but... If they detected no speeders, they would be deemed unnecessary and the contract wouldn't be renewed, would it? There is a strong incentive to keep detection high. A good way to do this would be to use sites that are, well, shooting fish in a barrel. How does this square with the stated aim of reducing road deaths? Your guess is as good as mine.

Popoutman

NewApproach wrote: »

If a bend is so sharp and dangerous that people are being killed, I don't see how parking a van at the side of the road will help in any way. They have to be on the straighter bits to be seen in enough time so as to not cause further incidents.

(Bolding mine)
Then put proper reflective stickers on the vans, and signpost them 1km in advance with the camera speed limit set. Put the schedule and current location of all of the vans up on a website, with a free api to allow others to pull those locations for use as they see fit.

If the concept of using cameras (either in vehicles or not) as a preventative measure instead of a punitive and revenue generating measure, then the cameras must be

1. Made very obvious with e.g. fluorescent and reflective paint and not hidden from view.
2. Signposted in advance with the monitored speedlimit shown.
3. The exact road location being monitored shown on the road with markings.
4. Have the locations up to date and completely freely available for use via an online interface. GPS devices can then warm of camera locations ahead.
5. Be in locations that actually make sense to have them. Not on straights, but on the apex of a bend, or the 20m before a crossroads, or actually on a roundabout.

Anything else is a punitive scheme and belies all the weasel-word rhetoric from the previous government about the "go-safe" scheme...

Atomic Pineapple

Gosub wrote: »

Yes, but... If they detected no speeders, they would be deemed unnecessary and the contract wouldn't be renewed, would it? There is a strong incentive to keep detection high. A good way to do this would be to use sites that are, well, shooting fish in a barrel. How does this square with the stated aim of reducing road deaths? Your guess is as good as mine.

Correct, they have to do their job to keep themselves in a job just like anyone else.

My guess on why they shoot fish in a barrel I stated earlier in the thread, that is that the government don't actually want to catch those speeding dangerously but want a blanket detection to make people fearful of the speed limit because they've already been nabbed or know someone who has been. That way you slow down drivers as a whole rather than just punishing those that actually drive dangerously.

It's a poor, ill thought out strategy in my opinion and one we can see creaking already with the steady rise in road deaths. Personally I think they should be scrapped and the money put into driver education from a young age and the re-education of the current driving public.

joujoujou

robtri wrote: »

not a cashcow??????

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/speedvan-firm-racks-up-profits-of-50000-per-week-29434760.html

Not really. :P

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/speed-cameras-not-selffinancing-30422285.html

The12thMan

"Speed cameras around the country's roads are so effective that they cannot pay for themselves, the Garda chief has claimed."

the Garda chief

has claimed.

of course he has......

ironclaw

The12thMan wrote: »

"Speed cameras around the country's roads are so effective that they cannot pay for themselves, the Garda chief has claimed."

Well, its a fair point. If you were operating under the guise that the fines pay for the operation, then its correct. If the amount of fines collected was low by comparison to the operating costs, then it wouldn't pay for itself. That said, no one is loosing out bar the tax payer as GoSafe get a paycheck that will more than cover their costs regardless, the tender alone would specify that.

So it leaves the question as to why the fines don't pay for it. Would be an interesting comparison to look at average speeds across the country and also the number of deaths attributed to speed [Which was negligible to start with: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84882279&postcount=32] I doubt either have reduced. So it leaves the most likely options that the vans are either painfully obvious and we all see them, or the even more likely option, that GoSafe are cashing in hand over fist and have no incentive to run a cost efficient operation. Much like any government run or sponsored task.

The12thMan

and because of this:
"When Garda chiefs negotiated the deal, they were working on the assumption of only half of all motorists complying with speed limits at the designated spots on the nation's road network.

This was based on international comparisons, according to the force.

However, between 86% and 99% of drivers are complying with the law in Ireland at the speed camera locations, identified because of high numbers of serious accidents"

dr.fuzzenstein

ironclaw wrote: »

I wish people didn't use the words 'money making' as these vans don't actually make the State any money. They lose money. They cost money. There is no profit what so ever, that I'm aware of. Even if they did make money, one major accident would wipe out the tally of fines in the expenses incurred by the State to clean it up. Taking last weeks figures off the top of my head of 4500 points issued, assuming they were all for speed, that's €12,000 last week. That's not even the drivers wage. Or as a really bad average €6,240,000 per year. Absolute squat.

There are far, far more efficient things to pay our money to. Like more Traffic Corp, actual driver education and maybe, just maybe, some decent ads on the rounds.

So they are useless AND cost money, wow, the Irish state couldn't make money if they where selling drugs.

dr.fuzzenstein

The12thMan wrote: »

and because of this:
"When Garda chiefs negotiated the deal, they were working on the assumption of only half of all motorists complying with speed limits at the designated spots on the nation's road network.

This was based on international comparisons, according to the force.

However, between 86% and 99% of drivers are complying with the law in Ireland at the speed camera locations, identified because of high numbers of serious accidents"

Put it this way, I know the three spots vans are located on my daily commute.
That means hammer down, lift off for 100 meters, hammer down again. And if I drive home the back road, its hammer down and then hammer further down, cause nobody gives a sh*t.

The12thMan

that goes for most of us dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein

The12thMan wrote: »

that goes for most of us dr.fuzzenstein

If anything I know I can speed more than before. Beforehand you had to look out for the Gards, they where hiding behind bushes and on on-ramps, you never knew where they would be next.
Since the advents of flash4cash Garda speedchecks have decreased massively and I know that outside of designated zones there is near zero chance of being caught.

The12thMan

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

If anything I know I can speed more than before. Beforehand you had to look out for the Gards, they where hiding behind bushes and on on-ramps, you never knew where they would be next.
Since the advents of flash4cash Garda speedchecks have decreased massively and I know that outside of designated zones there is near zero chance of being caught.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.