Network of privately run Speed Safety Cameras Nov 2010: Locations & Effectiveness

The revenue raising Speed camera vans do little for road safety as can be clearly demonstrated by the recent rise in road fatalities. The fatalities have little to do with "speed". All the speed camera vans do is extract a profit and do nothing for road safety.

The truth is that a speed camera cannot tell if a vehicle is being driven safely. It is perfectly possible to drive within the speed limit in a very dangerous manner, or above the speed limit in a perfectly safe manner. The few appropriately trained Garda Traffic corps members should be using their discretion to spot dangerous driving, instead we have privately run speed cameras vans, criminalising safe drivers on safe roads whilst the fatal accident rate rises due to drink/drug driving and stupid driver behaviour especially on unpoliced country roads late at night.

The point is that often speed limits are broken without people having accidents. What we have to focus on is where speed is actually causing accidents. Needless to say there are numerous locations where these vans are placed simply to make a profit rather than increase road safety.

It is not speed that kills and injures people, but inexperience, lack of attention, reckless driving and poor judgement, in which speed cameras provide no effective help or solution.

They are a total waste of public money and worse, fail to increase safety.
 
You do realise there are other people on the roads and that your speed will determine your breaking distance? Or are you living in an alternate universe?
 
It is not speed that kills and injures people My goodness!!!! I hope you were joking when you wrote that Werner? RSA spokesman said "“Reducing your speed by just 5% could reduce road deaths by 20% and injuries by 10%. But breaking the speed limit by just 5km/h could mean the difference between life or death for pedestrians, cyclists or unrestrained passengers travelling in the car. Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. And the faster the speed, the more serious the consequences."
 
tinkerbell said:
It is not speed that kills and injures people My goodness!!!! I hope you were joking when you wrote that Werner?
Click to expand...

Speed is what is referred to as a contributory factor, in many cases it is not the primary cause.

In relation to road death numbers, there has been a rise this year. As of Patrick's weekend, "there have been 15 more road deaths to date in 2011 compared to last year." (RSA)

But last year had the lowest number on record:
The number of Irish road deaths fell to 212 in 2010, the lowest level on record, down 26 from 2009. The Government’s road safety target of achieving no more than 252 deaths per annum by the end of 2012 was achieved three years ahead of schedule.
Click to expand...
 
Speed limits are man made, I hope it's not the same men that put the road markings down. I agree with werner, speed at the wrong time can kill, but there are too many factors to take in to consideration when allowing a speed limit.
 
Speed doesn't kill, it's a nonsense assertion by a nonsense organisation with a non-driver for a chairman.

Bad driving kills. If people were educated better about driving and paid more attention to the road, the environment around them and their own cars, rather than constantly watching their speedo, speed limits signs and speed vans, we'd be a lot better off.

I was behind a woman today doing 10kph under the speed limit on a national road, presumably for "safety". She was all over the road and her (not that old) car was in bits, with a half a hubcap hanging off one side and the driver's side mirror folded in.

Take people like that off the road and the rest of us can get on with our lives, instead of doing ridiculous manoeuvres in the name of safety, like navigating a dual carriageway right the way around Waterford at 80kph. It's just nonsense.
 
The contractor only apply the markings as they are told to do by the authorities, the same Engineers who fix the speeds also detemine road markings which they are not very good at.
 
Speed we drive at dictates how many seconds we have to 1) react and 2)try to prevent an accident by effective braking. It could mean the difference between a fatal/serious injury accident and a minor one;)
 
A working group on speed cameras under the chair of the Department of Justice and Law Reform was established in December 2003. On 2 August 2005 the Department of Justice issued a [broken link removed].

Executive Summary
The objective of a safety camera project is to reduce the number of speed related
collisions by:
1. increasing compliance with speed limits across the entire road network;
2. reducing the speed of vehicles at locations that have a speed related collision
history; and
3. acting as a deterrent to driving at excessive speeds.
The use of camera technology will result in increased volumes of detections of traffic
offences thereby achieving greater general deterrence (section 2.1).
The Government Road Safety Strategy 2004-2006 (page 25 of Strategy) proposes that
“An Garda Síochána will enter into arrangements for the engagement of a private
sector concern for the purpose of the provision and operation of a nationwide
programme for the detection of speeding offences” (section 3.1).
For any safety camera project to be successful, the public must recognise that its
purpose is to save lives and is not related to revenue collection (section 4).
The operation of safety cameras is more appropriate for a private service provider
than for the Garda for a number of reasons: the Garda Síochána cannot achieve
critical mass in terms of enforcement; private service provider personnel will require
mainly technical training; it would be efficient to transfer the risk represented by
advances in the technology to a private service provider; and it would also be more
efficient for a private provider rather than the Garda to provide back office capability
such as processing camera detections and issuing fixed charge notices as these are not
core policing matters (section 5).
Proportionality The cameras will be used to increase compliance with speed limits
across the entire road network; and to reduce the speed of vehicles at locations that
either have a speed related collision history or are of a type where a higher than
expected frequency of collisions may be expected to occur; and by so doing increase
road safety (section 6.1).
Fixed Site or Mobile Camera Units Because of the characteristics of the State’s road
network, the use of mobile cameras is the practical approach, although the use of
fixed cameras may be relevant at a small number of locations, for example, at a
limited number of motorway and dual carriageway locations with a previous history
of speed related collisions and at collision locations where a limit has been reached in
engineering improvements (section 6.2 and Appendix).
Covert or Overt Both methods will be used, as the mobile cameras will be capable of
operating in either fashion. The decision on how a camera will operate at a particular
site will be decided by the Garda Síochána. In the first year, 20% of observations
should be overt and 80% covert, with this mix to be reviewed after the first year of
operation (section 6.3 and Appendix).
4
Site Selection (See Appendix) The National Roads Authority (NRA) have analysed
the road accident database for speed related accidents in order to link speed checks to
where and when speed related accidents are happening.
The result is a matrix of proposals to link speed checks to speed related accidents:
· More speed checks at weekends than on weekdays;
· More speed checks between midnight and 03.00 than at other times;
· Motorways and dual carriageways to have less than 3% of speed checks;
· 50% of the speed checks on national roads and 50% on non-national roads;
· Urban national and rural roads should have a higher proportion of camera hours;
· 15 - 20% of checks on Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs).
Site selection will be made by the Office of Safety Camera Management (see below).
Number of Sites The project will commence with approximately 500-600 locations
countrywide (about 15-20 locations per local authority). The number of locations will
be increased as necessary to get the road safety result sought (section 6.5 and
Appendix).
Funding Initially, when the outsourced service is fully functional, the revenue from
speeding fixed charges will be considerable - prospectively €70 million per annum.
However, as driver compliance increases, this will decrease, but it is anticipated that it
will continue to exceed the cost of operating the system. Having obtained the views
of the Garda Síochána, it is the view of the working group that payments to the
private provider and increased Garda costs should be met from an appropriate
increase in the Garda Vote (section 6.6).
Processing
A number of options are possible. It is recommended that the private operator’s
processing office would also process Garda non-intercept speeding detections. In the
longer term the private operator’s processing office could take over all the work of the
Garda National Processing Office in addition to processing the operator’s speeding
detections (section 6.7).
The Garda Síochána would monitor evidential issues by the assignment of Garda
personnel to the private operator’s processing office.
Legislative Changes It will be necessary to provide authority for non-Garda
personnel to operate safety cameras and process their output (sections 6.8 and 6.9).
Design and Execution of Speed Management Process The Appendix sets out the
detailed design and execution of a speed management programme (section 7).
Organisational Model
The Garda Síochána will be responsible for the project. The project will be managed
at three levels:
5
Safety Camera Supervisory Board chaired by an Assistant Commissioner. It will
establish:
- the criteria for enforcement site locations;
- enforcement tolerance levels;
- setting and monitoring of performance indicators and quality standards
(section 8.1).
Office for Safety Camera Management headed by a Garda Superintendent. It will
manage the day-to-day running of the project, such as:
- financial control;
- reporting;
- monitoring of operations;
- communications;
- site selection;
- consultation
- performance management.
Its performance indicators/targets should be:
- number of vehicles checked;
- number of offences detected;
- rate of capture of images of offending vehicles;
- rate of issue of fixed charge notices.
It will report to the Safety Camera Supervisory Board (section 8.2).
Private Operator The private operator will:
- provide mobile safety camera units; camera operators; and a processing
system to view images;
- identify vehicles;
- issue fixed charge notices and nomination notices (to enable the registered
owner of a vehicle to nominate the driver when the offence was committed if
not the registered driver);
- identify notices not paid;
- where payment is not made, prepare a prosecution file for the Garda Síochána;
- submit management reports to the Garda Síochána;
- facilitate enforcement site location inspections (section 8.3).
Click to expand...
 
tinkerbell said:
It is not speed that kills and injures people My goodness!!!! I hope you were joking when you wrote that Werner? RSA spokesman said "“Reducing your speed by just 5% could reduce road deaths by 20% and injuries by 10%. But breaking the speed limit by just 5km/h could mean the difference between life or death for pedestrians, cyclists or unrestrained passengers travelling in the car. Hit by a car at 60km/h, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed. And the faster the speed, the more serious the consequences."
Click to expand...
Speed Does Not Kill!

Private company promoters of the Revenue raising Speed cameras like to claim "Speed Kills". By promoting false claims they can increase their profits Without speed you cannot travel! It the incorrect and irresponsible misuse of speed that kills

In order to make safe progress the good driver assesses the accident risk for the driving environment he/she encounters and adjusts his/her driving behaviour accordingly. In a high risk traffic environment it makes sense to slow down. However, higher speed in a safe traffic environment is safe and responsible: travelling faster here buys the driver time to slow down for high risk situations that could potentially develop in any traffic environment.

Reducing speed in safe conditions has a negative pay-off in the saving of life. Reducing speed in high risk traffic environments will save lives. To make the most effective use of resources speed reduction measures must therefore be targeted at high risk traffic environments only. Shooting fish in a barrel in the way the Speed camera vans are being used does not increase safety.

The motorways are our safest roads. However, a significant minority of motorists do not drive properly on motorways. Bad motorway drivers have poor lane discipline, do not use their mirrors, undertake, hog overtaking lanes, follow too closely and fail to adjust their speed to take account of poor weather conditions, road works and heavy traffic.

Other countries have addressed these problems. In Germany proper motorway driving behaviour (safe following distances, correct lane discipline and adherence to speed limits applied only when and where they are needed) is strictly enforced!

There is no correlation between maximum motorway speed limits and accident and casualty rates. Consequently, many stretches of the German Autobahn network have an excellent traffic signalling system which supports a variable speed limit regime with no upper limit! This real world situation and experience demonstrates that it is possible to have an inherently safe road without the equivalent of our 120kph maximum!

Of course the big difference is not the relicance on revenue raising camera vans that have no effect either on road safety, safe driving or a reduction in road casualitie But there is strict and professional enforcement of driving skills by trained professional traffic police and that is the key to safety.

Speed camers have done and will continue to do nothing for road safety
 
Last Saturday afternoon while driving from Wexford to Enniscorthy, I passed 2 Speed Vans ( Gatso's) and 1 motorbike Guard policing the road.

It's only 15miles...surely 1 Van would have been sufficient..,
 
Cantona7 said:
Last Saturday afternoon while driving from Wexford to Enniscorthy, I passed 2 Speed Vans ( Gatso's) and 1 motorbike Guard policing the road.

It's only 15miles...surely 1 Van would have been sufficient..,
Click to expand...

How many times have you seen people speed up the second they've gone past a speed check?
 
werner said:
The revenue raising Speed camera vans do little for road safety as can be clearly demonstrated by the recent rise in road fatalities. The fatalities have little to do with "speed". All the speed camera vans do is extract a profit and do nothing for road safety.
Click to expand...

I'm sick of reading this type of post. It's all macho bravado and posturing. I generally pay it no heed on the likes of Boards.ie.
I drive a fast car and ride a fast motorbike. I have 2 points on my licence (expiring this year) from driving by overtaking a car towing a trailer at 20mph.
I crossed a continuous white line even though I could see the road ahead was clear.
I deserved the points, I broke the law, it was on a road where numerous people died in recent years so it was a fair cop.
I don't drive like a loon, but I don't necessarily keep to the limits everywhere either.
Speed does not kill, I agree. Inappropriate speed kills.

The assertion by werner is something that I once agreed with when all I saw was speed traps on dual carrigeways or wide open, straight stretches of road where a 747 could land.
However, the GoSafe vans are different, and the problem is not the vans. They are advertised and signposted, so if you get snapped by one, whose fault is it ?

THE number of motorists caught speeding almost tripled in a year after privately operated speed cameras were deployed nationwide.
In March 2010, just over 9,500 motorists were caught breaking the speed limits by gardai.
But this soared to 26,000 in March this year, after the arrival of the private GoSafe cameras.
The private cameras, located at known speed crash zones, are operating in addition to the speed checks carried out by gardai.
Drivers who are caught by the GoSafe cameras get two penalty points on their licences, and are fined €80.
Four points are applied if a motorist takes the case to court and loses.
Gardai said yesterday the company was paid by the hour rather than by the number of catches.
A total of 61 people have died on the roads since the start of the year, five more than the corresponding period in 2010.
Click to expand...
 
Pique318 said:
However, the GoSafe vans are different, and the problem is not the vans. They are advertised and signposted, so if you get snapped by one, whose fault is it ?
Click to expand...

I agree and would remind posters that this thread is Network of privately run Speed Safety Cameras (GoSafe) Nov 2010: Locations & Effectiveness. Generalised discussions about other aspects of road safety may be considered as off topic.

I have a problem with the concept of siting the GoSafe cameras at so called "known crash zones" for a number of reasons.

1) They are not always in "known crash zones".

For example the "Princes Street-Rock Street - Monavalley" area of Tralee is a "GoSafe" camera area. This road winds its way through the narrow medieval one-way street system of the Town passing a Church, Town Hall, Garda Barracks, Hotel, traffic lights, little roundabouts, junctions. It is hard to imagine how traffic could even attain the speed limit not to mind breach it on the road.

My theory is that the designers had to include a certain number kilometers of urban road or else this stretch (and ones like it) act as a kind of control to allow the system managers to calibrate the system.

2) While the concept of siting the GoSafe cameras "known crash zones" appeals to "common sense" of designers and motorists - I would point out the "Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx". It goes like this: when Athletes feature on the cover of Sports Illustrated their career deteriorates. Like wise if you choose accident "Blackspots" things will all ways improve whether or not you have an intervention such as GoSafe etc.
 
Vans have a disadvantage to fixed cameras as they’re limited to certain types of locations. You could put a fixed camera on a narrow road, at the brow of a hill, at a dangerous bend.

With a van you tend to have to put it on a wide straight road with a hard shoulder.

I once heard a UK policeman explain that locations for speed checks, due to limitations with the technology and concern for the safety of the operators and road users, have to be in road locations that are relatively safe. However he felt this was compensated by studies that showed that people who speed on safe roads are more likely to also speed on dangerous roads.

I’d say most people would accept this honest sounding explanation, what is harder to take is where the Irish public are assumed to be idiots and are told a particular stretch of road is used because there was a fatality.

If you go back far enough and take a long enough stretch of road you’ll be hard pressed to find a road which doesn’t meet this criteria. To use an accident as a convenient excuse is something I find cynical.

It also ignores any road improvements (lower speed limits, extra lanes, flyovers, pedestrian lights, footpaths, junction redesign) that have taken place since the road had an accident. It’s these very improvements that often allow the opportunity for the speed van to take up a position.
 
I saw the GoSafe vans again on the stretch just leaving Castlebar heading towards Westport.

This time on the arrow straight wide bit with no turnoffs... Completely pointless in my opinion. Speed limit is 100km/h and TBH unless you're in something quite powerful the chances of breaking that speed prior to hitting the camera zone is slim...

Waist of resources...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top