Do you flash other drivers to warn of speed traps

Widdershins

I knew I'd seen it called road tax before.

http://vrt.ie/roadTax.php

_Kaiser_

Widdershins wrote: »

Have you thought about writing a book? Huge demand for condescending advice on money management, I'm sure.

None of the above describes people who cannot afford to do it.

''just don't drive your car'' doesn't cut it if you want to keep your job, pay your mortgage etc.

I'd laugh to see a boards thread from someone who lost everything because they gave up work because their car was untaxed. Imagine the replies then.

Running a car isn't cheap (tax aside). Do you take the same attitude to say rising insurance (almost double for many this year), the need to NCT it (maybe annually if an older car), or regular maintenance/parts like tyres etc?

Driving a car isn't a right or entitlement. It's something that comes with responsibilities and costs (very rare will a car ever make/save you money). If you can't afford them then you need to find alternative arrangements.

NiallBoo

Widdershins wrote: »

Have you thought about writing a book? Huge demand for condescending advice on money management, I'm sure.

None of the above describes people who cannot afford to do it.

''just don't drive your car'' doesn't cut it if you want to keep your job, pay your mortgage etc.

I'd laugh to see a boards thread from someone who lost everything because they gave up work because their car was untaxed. Imagine the replies then.

It is a problem that when choosing the cost of a house that folks don't consider what it will cost them in other ways - tax, crap roads, all those things add up.

The real flaw is living somewhere with no other options. An unwillingness to compromise.

Widdershins

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Running a car isn't cheap (tax aside). Do you take the same attitude to say rising insurance (almost double for many this year), the need to NCT it (maybe annually if an older car), or regular maintenance/parts like tyres etc?

Driving a car isn't a right or entitlement. It's something that comes with responsibilities and costs (very rare will a car ever make/save you money). If you can't afford them then you need to find alternative arrangements.

Do I take what attitude? Obviously I object to my insurance rising dramatically when by rights it should be dropping dramatically-in fact, it was, until it went up for everyone. And when making financial plans, nobody factored that level of an increase in.

I don't take any attitude to NCT test-there's a clear purpose and benefit to everyone from the NCT tests.

I'm perfectly aware of the cost of motoring, thanks for the sanctimonious lecture! I am referring to people finding themselves in hard times, who might have had many circumstances changing and making things more difficult. I'm not referring to myself nor my 'wilingness' to finance my own vehicle costs.

_Kaiser_

NiallBoo wrote: »

It is a problem that when choosing the cost of a house that folks don't consider what it will cost them in other ways - tax, crap roads, all those things add up.

The real flaw is living somewhere with no other options. An unwillingness to compromise.

+1. There's regular posts over on C&T from people who've moved to a new place or accepted a new job.. and only THEN think about how they're going to get to/from it.

Widdershins

NiallBoo wrote: »

It is a problem that when choosing the cost of a house that folks don't consider what it will cost them in other ways - tax, crap roads, all those things add up.

The real flaw is living somewhere with no other options. An unwillingness to compromise.

I'll grant you that some people might be shortsighted when making life plans like where to live, work etc, but from a few comments I suspect there are people who can't comprehend the idea that life can change very dramatically and leave people with few choices.
Life tends to teach people compassion and humility in the end though.

lazybones32

NiallBoo wrote: »

I really doubt their margin for error is that small.

Someone posted two links where one person was fined 300 euro and two others had their cars taken off them for alerting other motorists to the presence of a checkpoint. What does that tell you about their margins and their approach to it? If they could do you for 1kmph over the limit, they would.

_Kaiser_

Widdershins wrote: »

I'll grant you that some people might be shortsighted when making life plans like where to live, work etc, but from a few comments I suspect there are people who can't comprehend the idea that life can change very dramatically and leave people with few choices.
Life tends to teach people compassion and humility in the end though.

I was laid off myself in 2009 and was out of work for a year until I found something else.

Times were very tough, and cutbacks and sacrifices had to be made.. and even when I did find work, I had to commute just under 90 minutes each way for the first year which was not cheap I can tell you.

But my bills were still paid and the car was still taxed. The way I looked at it was "no car, no job" and that included ensuring that it was fully road legal and maintained. Why? Because you don't get to pick and choose these things, as expensive and difficult as it may be to cover them sometimes.

MeatTwoVeg

lazybones32 wrote:

What does that tell you about their margins and their approach to it? .

Nothing?

endagibson

Widdershins wrote: »

There are other ways to discourage people from just not bothering to tax their car.

Can you give some details on what they are?

Sleeper12

The Rape of Lucretia wrote:

Do you really think if I stole a million quid from Bill Gates it would make any difference to his life or to anyone elses apart from mine ? It wouldnt. So its OK for me to steal from Bill Gates ?

From speed cameras to Bill gates. You've got to love boards.ie

lazybones32

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Nothing?

Confiscating 2 cars for flashing their headlights says nothing to you? It says a lot about you though.

NiallBoo

Widdershins wrote: »

I'll grant you that some people might be shortsighted when making life plans like where to live, work etc, but from a few comments I suspect there are people who can't comprehend the idea that life can change very dramatically and leave people with few choices.
Life tends to teach people compassion and humility in the end though.

I have sympathy for people that have back ed themselves into a financial dung-heap, I really I do.

I have no interest in making a stick to beat people with (what would be the point? ) but i do think it's important to recognise how these things happen and accepting that rather than shouting about insurance and roads, because they're the things that bite right now.

From what I can see, we do these things mostly because it's what's done, what's expected rather than really weighing up the costs and benefits to your life. and I think that's the real pity.

Seth Brundle

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

No sure how much you think it costs to maintain the national road network, but I'm sure you'll be able to tell us all.

As neither the Irish government nor it's various agencies such as the local authorities or the NRA have ever invested sufficiently in road maintenance, despite collecting way more from motorists than was ever spent, the amount required to properly maintain our roads would be a large but unknown amount.

MeatTwoVeg

lazybones32 wrote:

Confiscating 2 cars for flashing their headlights says nothing to you? It says a lot about you though.

Like what(

bogwalrus

I used to when i was a young driver. Been driving 14 years now (i know not that long) and have not done it in the last 6 years or so. The main reason being that I have seen someone seriously aggressive impatient drivers on the straight roads where the speed traps normally are. I want them to be caught so I no longer give a heads up just in case it is a dickheadðŸ˜

Jawgap

NiallBoo wrote: »

as a matter of interest, have you looked up crash/fatality statistics for that stretch of road?

Well you see that's the problem.....only putting the vans on stretches that have had collisions is a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse is gone.

I'd have more faith in the system if they worked to identified 'risk' areas and put some effort into policing those to prevent fatalities and serious injuries......

.....or if they focused on areas where people engage in crazy behaviours, for example on secondary roads......or especially outside schools. We had the local sergeant tell us at my kids schools' parents council that the road outside the school wasn't 'busy' enough for a speed trap (code for, they wouldn't make enough money) despite a project done by the kids that showed that over 75% of the cars travelling past the school were speeding!

As for that stretch of road where I never flash/warn the speeders, it's the N51 Drogheda to Slane Road, and as recently as last month a kid was killed on it.....anyone who speeds on it, especially the stretch past Townley Hall, deserves their points and the fine.

CruelCoin

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Given the number of deaths and injuries caused by excessive speed, is it mortally acceptable to try to circumvent measures to prevent excessive speed or should I get with the program and flash more?

Absolutely it is acceptable! If you think about it, it's actually better.

No Flash - Car carries on speeding
Flash - Car slows down.

The safety van does nothing to achieve a reduction in speed because it hops from one place to the next, so the speeder will still drive the same everywhere. The only thing reducing speed in this scenario is the flashing.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I'm curious though, if someone flashes those on their elevated noble steeds, do you slow your high horse down so you're not fined, and be outraged after??

CruelCoin

kbannon wrote: »

As neither the Irish government nor it's various agencies such as the local authorities or the NRA have ever invested sufficiently in road maintenance, despite collecting way more from motorists than was ever spent, the amount required to properly maintain our roads would be a large but unknown amount.

And yet the cars keep rolling, in ever greater numbers, with fewer and fewer delays (thanks to all the "non-investment" like motorway extension, bypasses, underpasses, etc)

The powers that be have clearly decided that the current level of input is perfectly adequate, and given the evidence, i'd agree with them.

Wibbs

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'm curious though, if someone flashes those on their elevated noble steeds, do you slow your high horse down so you're not fined, and be outraged after??

God no. Didn't you realise Lex, these saints never speed. Or pick their nose. Or fart.

inforfun

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'm curious though, if someone flashes those on their elevated noble steeds, do you slow your high horse down so you're not fined, and be outraged after??

No need, they have their horses limited just like trucks (are supposed to)

CruelCoin

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'm curious though, if someone flashes those on their elevated noble steeds, do you slow your high horse down so you're not fined, and be outraged after??

Outraged after? Yes.

The vast majority of motorists speed, on all types of road.

We ditched the ban on same-sex marriage because the majority thought it to be against their wants. If the majority speed, then shouldn't it be at least up for consideration that "huh, maybe they want to go faster?"

These limits as we have now are relics of the days when cars actually did take the hundreds of meters to slow down, like the theory test still claims.
They're outdated in the extreme and haven't kept up with the times.

People who bleat on about increasing road deaths neatly ignore the fact that per km driven, road deaths are progressively lower each year.

Seth Brundle

CruelCoin wrote: »

And yet the cars keep rolling, in ever greater numbers, with fewer and fewer delays (thanks to all the "non-investment" like motorway extension, bypasses, underpasses, etc)

The powers that be have clearly decided that the current level of input is perfectly adequate, and given the evidence, i'd agree with them.

I didn't say there was "non-investment": I said that there has always been under investment. You then talk about new developments as opposed to maintenance. Many of our new developments have been expensive projects delivering a road whose quality can be questioned (we still think cheese wire is ok).
Also, you refer to delays reducing. You appear to be referring to national primary routes. There are a lot more roads on our network than these. In terms if delays reducing, how then has my and many other people's commuting time increased?
Nonetheless, funds have always been short when it comes to road maintenance, if you have ever driven then you would have seen this.

Getting back to my point, we do spend on road maintenance but we don't spend enough and never have!

Colser

kbannon wrote:

Getting back to my point, we do spend on road maintenance but we don't spend enough and never have!

What % of car tax is actually spent on road maintenance do you think?

Seth Brundle

Colser wrote: »

What % of car tax is actually spent on road maintenance do you think?

We don't have a car tax!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Colser wrote: »

What % of car tax is actually spent on road maintenance do you think?

0%. Motor tax is not ringfenced for roads.

MeatTwoVeg

Colser wrote:

What % of car tax is actually spent on road maintenance do you think?

In the terms of raw figures, about 15% of the amount brought in by motor tax is spent annually on maintenance of the existing network.

Colser

Milani Fast Penicillin wrote:

0%. Motor tax is not ringfenced for roads.

So where is it spent?

Jesus.

GM228 wrote: »

Yes for both offences.Obstructing a peace officer.
http://m.wexfordpeople.ie/news/driver-fined-e300-for-warning-other-motorists-about-garda-checkpoint-27660331.html
And due care and consideration.
https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/476273935743729664

W*nkers. Don't know how they're entitled to seize someone's car. There must've been something else wrong.

I'll still do it regardless. Motorists unite.

frozenfrozen

Not the same thing. They were flashing for checkpoints. Not speed vans. Big difference between warning someone there's a drunk driving checkpoint ahead and warning them there's a gosafe van

Jesus.

How could they take his car though?

MeatTwoVeg

frozenfrozen wrote:

Big difference between warning someone there's a drunk driving checkpoint ahead and warning them there's a gosafe van

Yep flashing for a speed van is worse, speed is a factor in far more fatalities than alcohol.

Smokers and Jokers?

kbannon wrote: »

We don't have a car tax!

Road tax?

Smokers and Jokers?

Jesus. wrote: »

W*nkers. Don't know how they're entitled to seize someone's car. There must've been something else wrong.

I'll still do it regardless. Motorists unite.

Crush it, no questions asked. That'll learn them. Tossers.

pilly

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I was laid off myself in 2009 and was out of work for a year until I found something else.

Times were very tough, and cutbacks and sacrifices had to be made.. and even when I did find work, I had to commute just under 90 minutes each way for the first year which was not cheap I can tell you.

But my bills were still paid and the car was still taxed. The way I looked at it was "no car, no job" and that included ensuring that it was fully road legal and maintained. Why? Because you don't get to pick and choose these things, as expensive and difficult as it may be to cover them sometimes.

So if you had to choose between bringing a child to the doctor and paying road tax Kaiser it would be the road tax?

MeatTwoVeg

pilly wrote:

So if you had to choose between bringing a child to the doctor and paying road tax Kaiser it would be the road tax?

I'm sure the cops haven't heard any made up sob stories before.

The Backwards Man

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I'm curious though, if someone flashes those on their elevated noble steeds, do you slow your high horse down so you're not fined, and be outraged after??

Aye, if someone flashes me I'll keep an eye out, there are many, many genuine hazards on the road where alerting oncoming motorists is absolutely the right thing to do, but if it turns out to be a speed trap they were flashing about I'll roll my eyes to myself and think there went another silly bastard.

Paullimerick

Well I have to say I do flash most times. As they said these speed vans were to be put where there was accident black spots and from my opinion it's put in spots where they just clock up the fines. As I know of 3 places locally to me and between them I can only remember one accident that causes a death. And that was a tyre blow out. It's a money game in my eyes. But hi everyone is entitled to there opinion and that's mine.

pilly

Colser wrote: »

So where is it spent?

Spent on water charges!!

jmayo

NiallBoo wrote: »

Ain't no road tax.

If there were, you sure wouldn't be able to afford what it costs to maintain those roads you're talking about.

Actually you have it totally ar** ways and shoudl do a bit of fact checking.


As kbannon and srameen have pointed out Motor tax is more than what is spent on roads and it is not ringfenced but goes into the general coffer.

If anything more is collected from motortax than is used on roads especially maintenance.
Maybe if new roads are factored into the equation it might balance out, but you then have to realise that a lot of the motorways and bridges are actually tolled and build with public/private partnership.

Then of course we should factor in that the motorist is also hit with other taxes like tax on fuel, which is big portion of the price per litre.
Then also factor in the huge tax whjch is VRT.
BTW it is also a tax on tax because it is calculated after VAT is included.

So really the motorist pays for a lot more than is ever spent on the roads.

Seth Brundle

Smokers and Jokers? wrote: »

Road tax?

Guess again.
We don't have a road tax as you can't really tax a road.
We don't have a car tax as most echanically propelled vehicles are subject to it, not just cars.
We have a motor tax!

NiallBoo

jmayo wrote: »

Actually you have it totally ar** ways and shoudl do a bit of fact checking.


As kbannon and srameen have pointed out Motor tax is more than what is spent on roads and it is not ringfenced but goes into the general coffer.

If anything more is collected from motortax than is used on roads especially maintenance.
Maybe if new roads are factored into the equation it might balance out, but you then have to realise that a lot of the motorways and bridges are actually tolled and build with public/private partnership.

Then of course we should factor in that the motorist is also hit with other taxes like tax on fuel, which is big portion of the price per litre.
Then also factor in the huge tax whjch is VRT.
BTW it is also a tax on tax because it is calculated after VAT is included.

So really the motorist pays for a lot more than is ever spent on the roads.

You're missing the point here.
I was talking about the cost of maintaining rural roads vs. overall spend.

I was responding to a comment about "the roads out our way" being bad and that being a reason for not paying "road tax"(yes, I know).

Assuming that to mean l and some r roads then if you worked out the cost of maintaining them vs the number of users then you'd find the cost per user is astronomical. Much higher than motorways etc.

Thus, even though they're terrible roads, if motor tax was based on the cost of maintaining the roads we use(and if motor tax was for paying for roads), then this guy would have to pay much more, not less.

MeatTwoVeg

NiallBoo wrote:

I was responding to a comment about "the roads out our way" being bad and that being a reason for not paying "road tax"(yes, I know).

Irish people have an unedifying habit of having to try to justify their poor behavior.
I'd have more respect for someone who said 'I don't pay motor tax because I'm a cheap bastard and I think I can get away with it' or 'I speed because I'm reckless and don't really give a **** about how dangerous my actions are to others'.

But no, there has to be some bull**** moralistic reason invented. 'The Gubberment won't fix my road'. 'The RSA are manipulating the stats and it's all a big revenue generating exercise, sur speeding never killed anyone'.

Son Of A Vidic

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Do you flash other drivers to warn of speed traps

Not really, since it's impossible to control the car with my arse cheeks resting on the steering wheel.

Francie Barrett

lazybones32 wrote: »

I always flash. Always. Whether it's a checkpoint, van, pulled-in squad car or unmarked banger.
I flash for about a mile beyond it; after that it's up to someone else to pass on the favour.


Seeing as the van no longer operates in accident black-spots and rumours of quotas being issued, I have no intention of ever stopping my courtesy.

Same for me. Seems very clear to me that speed traps have become a revenue shakedown, you need only look at the locations where they're placed to see that. The worst thing is that some poor buggers get hit twice (the fine itself, then the insurance hike for the penalty points).

Sapphire

I'd flash for a speed van. Their aim as they take great pains to remind us, is to get people to reduce speed. It's not about the money for them.

So IMO, I'm helping.

Garda checkpoint, nope. They could be checking for the fcukers that robbed a house /car down the road, or drink driving, and I wont interfere with Gardai doing their job.

NiallBoo

An idea that seems to be missing or ignored is that camera and points/fines are about changing driver behaviour all of the time, not just when the van is there.

We're supposed to not know when vans will be there so that we assume that they could be and have to keep to the limit all of the time to avoid getting caught.

This is why we have mobile vans.

This is why warning people completely takes the point out of it.

Instead of assuming we'll get caught, we assume that we'll be warned and don't bother sticking to the limit the rest of the time.

If you think that flashing helps anyone then you're just picking the answer that suits you.

Special Circumstances

NiallBoo wrote: »

An idea that seems to be missing or ignored is that camera and points/fines are about changing driver behaviour all of the time, not just when the van is there.

We're supposed to not know when vans will be there so that we assume that they could be and have to keep to the limit all of the time to avoid getting caught.

This is why we have mobile vans.

This is why warning people completely takes the point out of it.

Instead of assuming we'll get caught, we assume that we'll be warned and don't bother sticking to the limit the rest of the time.

If you think that flashing helps anyone then you're just picking the answer that suits you.

We could go back to the idea of a man walking in front of our horseless carriages, or we can be extra cautious for areas where accidents have happened to such an extent that a van has been put there.
Why would you NOT flash to let someone know that there is a danger point ahead?

Would you NOT flash someone if there was a horse loose on the road around the corner? "well if they are travelling a suitable speed then there won't be a problem f**k em" is it?

pawrick

Only flash for the van when it's parked somewhere with a suspect speed change on a good road. My local van likes to park where the motorway changes to a dual carriageway speed limit on a straight stretch of road fro example. I'd never warn people of check points though which our local facebook traffic watch does.