Fish In Barrel Speed Checks

prospect

I am just wondering if anyone follows or shares this logic, with regard to speed checks on main roads, motorways, dual carraige ways and main commuter routes.
We have all heard tonnes of people complaining that speed checks on these roads are just to generate revenue, and that they should be moved to more 'isolated' roads, or known accident black spots.

Now before I begin, this is just a point of view discussed recently over a couple of drinks, I am not saying I agree with, nor that I disagree with it, so keep the abuse to yourselves, (if you are that way inclined!).

Logic: If these 'fish in barrel' speed cameras are revenue generating, then people are obviously speeding (to some degree), on these routes! Otherwise they wouldn't generate much revenue. Maybe if everyone actually obeyed the speed limit then they wouldn't generate any revenue, and they would concentrate on areas with lesser volumes of traffic.
We have proved then, because they are obviously 'profitable' that there alot of people breaking the limit, and, lets assume, that 75% of all traffic travels these roads.
If the cameras were taken off, it is safe to say that people would exceed the limits even further, and therefore putting 3/4 of all traffic at a much greater risk.
The reason that the fatalaties are on the secondary routes (where we are assuming 25% of the traffic is), is because there is an awareness of the lack of speed checks. So if the attention was shifted to this 25% then the danger area switchs back to the 75% remainder. Hence the potential is that the number of accidents will triple, if not more.

Opinions?

Nuttzz

Its things like a 3 lane road with the Naas Road having a 50kmph limit on it that generates revenue, or the speed check at the end of the motorway were the van sits in a 60kmph zone just 20 meters after the end of the 120kmph zone.

The metric conversion was an opportunity to address some unrealistic speed limits which was sadly missed

mike65

I'm watching this thread!

People feel agrieved as the "fish-in-barrell" scenario involves enforcing speed limits that are in the view of most unreasonably low. I dont think anyone can or would complain if caught doing 160 on narrow 60k road but do when done for going 10k over by Bellfield flyover (N11)

Mike.

Our man in Havana

Read todays Indo lads! look for the pics of sneaky cops. I will scan later if you wish.

Seth Brundle

Given that all revenue generated goes straight into the exchequer, I dont think this motivates the gardai.
I think part of the problem has to do with 'catch volumes' set at the stations. Apparently the GRA were recently complaining that resources were being used to catch speeders because if they don't meet targets then they could lose a memebr of staff!
See http://breaking.tcm.ie/2005/04/28/story200071.html

prospect

mike65 wrote:

I'm watching this thread!

A worthwhile idea.
I truely don't want to start any abusive stuff. Just some honest opinions on that train of thought.

i.e.

nobody, but If Somebody Answers wrote:

F**king Stupid

That isn't a constructive opinion or thought.

Kermitt

prospect wrote:

So if the attention was shifted to this 25% then the danger area switchs back to the 75% remainder. Hence the potential is that the number of accidents will triple, if not more.

Opinions?

This is an unrealistic assumption as a 3 lane motorway is a far safer place to drive than a back or regional road. I am not advocating speeding at all, but if you lose control of your car on a motorway (blown tyre or whatever) it will make little or no difference wheter you're doing 120 or 140kph.. you're still f**ked. But how many accidents do you see on motorways. Two high profile ones on M50.. not much else though.

Accidents are caused by innapropriate use of speed for the road surface/conditions.

ciarsd

this really annoys me no end...N11, N4 at liffey valley, St.John's Road etc etc

It is a fact that most of our accidents and more importantly & sadly our fatal accidents occur on NON-motorway/primary routes and NOT during the daytime during the week.
This is happening more so on our 'back roads' and secondary routes (rat runs as I like to call them) later at night or very early in the hours of the morning.

The ridiculous & shameful road death figure that this very small island has is really inexcusable and driver behaviour and speed need to be policed better.

It's easy to stick a camera where your guaranteed a 'hit' - stick one on one of the rat runs and watch behaviour change.

Another serious factor to the road deaths is our road condition but thats another topic and another day..

css

There's logic to your point alright prospect. If you are speeding and caught doing so, fair enough you have to hold your hands up. But what gets peoples backs up is the whole government stance that it's for road safety, and not revenue generation.

Doing 5kph over the limit isn't the same as 20kph over on any road, yet it's treated with the same punishment.

Likewise with the majority of checks on major roads, which are built to a higher standard that means they are safer to drive at around the designated limit or even much above them. Everyone can name spots with riduclously low limits, but who asks the questions of the people who set the limits and have the powers to change them?

If the cameras were taken off it wouldn't have much of an impact, as the roads are safer to begin with.

prospect

Kermitt wrote:

But how many accidents do you see on motorways. Two high profile ones on M50.. not much else though.

Exactly, but is this because people are aware of the high police/gatso presence? So, if the attention was switched from the motorways, would we see an increase in accidents?
Or are people generally happy that 120Kmh is a high enough limit on a suitable road?

Kermitt

I think a lot of people are quite happy at 120kph.. I'll admit i have atendancy to slide to 130(80mph).. but thats a bad habit of mine. i dont think i'm causing any more of a risk though. there's always the twats that push 160 (100mph) which is hard to combat without speed checks. But i dont think everyone would suddenly push to theses speeds if there were less checks.

prospect

css wrote:

There's logic to your point alright prospect.

Oh feck, its not MY point
You'll get me in trouble...

css wrote:

Doing 5kph over the limit

But if people are willing to do that 5kph over the limit, when they know there is a very high probability of getting caught, what would they do if they knew the guards were paying little or no attention to these 'high speed' routes?

Nuttzz

what about a scale of points for being over the limit

e.g.

5 over 1 point
10 over 2 points
15 over 3 points
20 over 4 points

and so on?

Alun

Kermitt wrote:

I think a lot of people are quite happy at 120kph.. I'll admit i have atendancy to slide to 130(80mph).. but thats a bad habit of mine.

So do I, but that's because I know that at an indicated 130 on my speedometer I'm actually doing slightly less than 120 in real life

css

Ok well lets rephrase it a bit, nobody's suggesting they should completely ignore the main arteries, just concentrate a bit more on the other roads. If the speed checks were liable to be anywhere at anytime then you'd see some change in driver behaviour.

Until that happens people will tootle along on the main safer roads while the lunatics will fly down the backroads in full knowledge that they wont encounter any checks.

Incidentally check your car's speedo against a gps system, and you might find you are not travelling as fast as you thought..

BrianD3

Interesting post. If you shift all speed checks from motorways and dual carriageways onto other locations I would say that yes there's going to be lots of bad accidents on the previously safe roads resulting in them ceasing to be safe. With no possibility of getting caught speeding on good roads, a sizeable number of drivers are going to drive as fast as they can (read: as fast as their cars will go without exploding) all the bloody time. You're also going to have a sizeable number of drivers who'll be doing 50 mph no matter how good or bad the conditions, then you'd have trucks that are in theory limited to ~50 mph. High speeds don't work on Irish roads because there are too many crap untrained drivers about. You'd also have too much of a speed differential between Mr Uberpanzer in his BMW M985CSi and some half blind old man in a flat cap in his 15 year old diesel Jetta.

Kermitt

Alun wrote:

So do I, but that's because I know that at an indicated 130 on my speedometer I'm actually doing slightly less than 120 in real life

I know there's margin for error with speedometers.. but i'd like to know how you are so sure of this for your vehicle. it can be either way.

On a more grumpy old ranting note.. we don't need to complain about speed checks if we are not speeding. whatever your principles. If the Gardaí had big signs up saying SPEED CHECK AHEAD, we'd all slow down..and speed back up once past. By staying concealed, the Gardaí are merely catching people who are breaking the law. i'm fairly rigid with speed limits and have no problem with hidden speed checks.. but i do have a problem with silly tickets such as 53kph in a 50 zone at 2 a.m - My uncle driving a Hackney. wheres the danger?

Obviously there's the case of where do you draw the line... maybe should consider all conditions, time, road condition..weather etc?

kdevitt

Kermitt wrote:

Two high profile ones on M50.. not much else though.

Accidents are caused by innapropriate use of speed for the road surface/conditions.

There was the one on the M1 - allegedly caused by some gob****e in his girlfiends car reaching down to pick up a mobile phone he'd dropped. I don't believe you can legislate for that sort of thing - a speed check wouldn't have done anything to him if he was only doing 75 mph, yet the damage may have been just as bad, and it was purely down to pants driving.

People are peeved, well myself anyway, by the fish in the barrel policing policy because on one hand you're told they're trying to improve road safety by putting out speed checks, yet the checks are put on the safest roads in the country. Theres no logic to it at all. That said, there are plenty of roads where I'd have no problems with speed checks, its just that they never seem to be policed.

mike65

Nuttzz wrote:

what about a scale of points for being over the limit

e.g.

5 over 1 point
10 over 2 points
15 over 3 points
20 over 4 points

and so on?

I'd certainly back this - the one size fits all punishment means there is a "might as well be hung for a sheep..." mentality at work. If on the other hand you could be off the road for a few serious transgressions that would soften some drivers cough alright.

The law would be more repected if we thought it was being enforced in a logical fashion rather than in a way which happens to suit easy livin' Gardai

Mike.

Macy

Fish in a barrell speed traps are invariable at (or damn close) to speed limit changes, or at places where the speed limit is ridiculously low. A few examples on the N11... Wyattville Road, where there were there nearly every day when it was 30mph - hardly there at all now it's up to 60kph (which is still too low imo, but I won't get into that). Kilmacanogue, whatever about the poorly designed southbound side, Northbound no reason for a 60 limit - only serious incident there I've heard off was some píssed up driver who went the wrong way, not speed.

I really don't buy that the roads would be more dangerous if the focus was shifted from dual carriageways/ motorways to back roads. Dual Carriageways are safer roads for starters, and in many cases the speed limits could be upped anyway. And no one's suggesting totally ignoring them, just them not being the main focus, as they aren't (and never were) the main accident blackspots. As has been said, a lot of accidents happen in the early hours at weekends - no cops on back roads or motorways at that time, but where are the deaths?

I also have a major problem with the way the gardai operate. It's not about prevention, it's about catching people. GATSO's (and fixed camera's) should be marked to actually slow people down rather than try and catch people out. Ditto the behind the hedge hairdryer cops. I mean is the N11 at Belfield more dangerous than through all the lights by Stillorgan? Or are they simply less visible when they're hiding around the dip?

The biggest problem is quota's for the cops. The only quota they should have is to bring down road deaths, not the number of convictions. It's quota's that lead to fish in a barrell traps on safe roads, as a response to the Government/Media/Commissioners questions every Monday morning when there's been x number of deaths over the weekend.

Macy

Kermitt wrote:

By staying concealed, the Gardaí are merely catching people who are breaking the law. i'm fairly rigid with speed limits and have no problem with hidden speed checks.. but i do have a problem with silly tickets such as 53kph in a 50 zone at 2 a.m - My uncle driving a Hackney. wheres the danger?

Don't get your logic. Either the speed limits the speed limit or it's not. 2am probably one of the most dangerous times on the road anyway, as opposed to during daylight hours that would be the standard for fish in a barrell traps...

Kermitt

what i mean here is that while the Garda was doing my uncle for 3kph over the limit while on the nightly pub taxi run.. there were plenty of idiots not too far away driving like the hammers of hell and getting away with it. (only 2 miles after that he was passed by a screaming sports car who was clearly far more dangerous and driving erratically)

you are right about Gardaí being visible though.. the mere presence of a squad car is enough to slow people down.. but there is not enough presence on the roads.

alias no.9

I think people on this board could list all the fixed speed camera positions in the country. They could also list the places where the gatso vans are usually parked along with the usual marked and unmarked patrol car speed check locations. Outside of these locations, the chances of getting stopped are negligible.

I believe speed checks should take the form of the gardai pulling for 5 minutes at a time, just about anywhere. They should be highly visible and likely to occur anywhere. When people see speed checks just about anywhere, they expect them everywhere and will therefore be less likely to take chances.

prospect

Great, a few interesting viewpoints.

So would a solution like this work:

Gatso, (or non 'advertised'), speed checks on high spped roads, at regular points on the route, to help reduce the likely hood of blisteringly fast idiots on these roads.
Highly visible, speed detection patrol cars, that constantly move randomly around the country. And never sit in the same spot for more than 30 minutes.

Then, for the first 10kmh over the limit, issue a warning. 3 warnings and you get a point.
20-30Kmh over the limit = 1 point
30-40Kmh over the limit = 2 points
40Kmh+ over the limit = 4 points

Double points for X repeat offences in Y amount of time etc.

comanche

Nuttzz wrote:

what about a scale of points for being over the limit

e.g.

5 over 1 point
10 over 2 points
15 over 3 points
20 over 4 points

and so on?

Would be better as a percentage - 5kmph over @ 50kmph is a bit different than 5kmph at 120kmph. But good idea for sure.

Also if the fines were proportanate to your yearly income and to the percentage over the speed limit you are I think that would be good

DubTony

comanche wrote:

Would be better as a percentage - 5kmph over @ 50kmph is a bit different than 5kmph at 120kmph.

Definitely percentages are better. What about the way it's done in Massachusetts. 15 years ago, for every mile per hour over the limit the fine was $10. My friend was done at 33 in a 25 zone. Cost him $80. The cop caught him speeding as he drove past a school (almost a felony in the States), and so had no sympathy and gave no leeway. He's told me that on a "safer" road he probably would have gotten off with a warning.

On top of that, because police report to insurers he lost his safe driving bonus (there's a novel idea) and paid an $80 surcharge for the speeding. I believe that surcharge stays on for a few years.

So apart from an $80 fine, he paid it again on his insurance (at least once) and lost the bonus. All told, that speeding conviction really hit him where it hurt.

Might be worth considering here, but the insurance system would need to be a lot more transparent, and I doubt that'll happen any day soon. BTW, at the time he was driving a Corvette at the age of 24. His insurance was $380 a year.

stratos

The Irish like their laws loose and fast. Don't you feel great if you get to stay back in a pub. We seem to like a bit of luck in our laws, and the fish in a barrel approach to speed traps removes that. I have to say I drive a lot and drive very responsibly all day long. However now and again you just can't bea t a 125 mph thrash up the M1 (usually late at night) . Hey sorry I'm human. we want safety but with a sporting chance too !

DubTony

stratos wrote:

However now and again you just can't bea t a 125 mph thrash up the M1 (usually late at night) . Hey sorry I'm human. we want safety but with a sporting chance too !

Haven't done over 100mph since the night on the M4 about 6 years ago. Pottering along at a steady 120mph at 2 am when the truck ahead of me indicated to pull out to overtake. Unfortunately he made his move at the same time. It's amazing how much road you can cover in a few seconds at 120 and before I knew he had the cab and a quarter of the trailer over the line. He copped on that there was a lunatic in an FTO trying to get it on with his rear wheels and pulled back in swiftly. Good brakes on those FTOs, but if he'd kept going I'd have been driving / skidding / out of control on the median.
Crawled home at a nice steady 60 mph after that. A cold sweat is something you don't want to experience too often.

Kermitt

stratos wrote:

However now and again you just can't bea t a 125 mph thrash up the M1!

How can you say you drive responsibly at any time when you think its ok to do over 120mph on a public road. Last night a large fox dashed out in front of my car on the motorway.. had i been doing any more than the 110 kph or so i was doing i would have hit it.. two results. dead fox and badly damaged car. Now imagine you're doin 125mph (200kph).. you could hit the fox and wreck the front end of the car (as well as mr foxy) or you could panic and swerve. result.. mr foxy trots into the hedge unscathed and at best you spent 5 months in intensive care. at worst you kill someone else.

Speed limits are there for a reason.. not to spoil your penis/ego driven fun. they give you a chance to react to an abrupt change ahead. I'm 21, and like my mischief.. but i'd rather not die doing it. sorry for the rant.. just bugs me.

Go to Germany and live on an autobahn.

kdevitt

Kermitt wrote:

you could hit the fox and wreck the front end of the car (as well as mr foxy) or you could panic and swerve.

You could panic and swerve and the legal speed and do just as much damage to other road users. Panicing and swerving is crap driving - much like doing your makeup while overtaking.

Kermitt

so you class doing 125mph as good driving do you. I find it amusing that people can say they are a good driver becase they can drive fast. Of course you could do a lot of damage at legal speeds.. but you also have a lot more time to react. the point of this thread is the speed traps.. but it seems that some people want to flex their ego by boasting about their speeding. Not clever. I have had the misfortune of being in a car crash.. not speed related but a momentary lapse in concentration. it is not a pleasant experience. All it takes is a moment. and that moment passes a lot faster when you're driving like schumacher.