# Speed Cameras : Garmin or Tom Tom - which alerts you to speed camera locations?



## cerberos (21 Oct 2007)

Garmin or Tom Tom - which alerts you to speed camera locations?


----------



## tosullivan (21 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



cerberos said:


> Garmin or Tom Tom - which alerts you to speed camera locations?


*Both*.....

I have the file for almost all the garda locations in Ireland for my Tom Tom.  You can set it to warn you in advance up to any distance.  I have mine set for 1000m.  Very handy

I'm not sure what format the file needs to be in for teh Garmin but its an OV2 file for the TT.  I think there are converters available free on the web if Garmin is your fancy and I could email it to you


----------



## Ravima (21 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*

will these things also warn of the mobile cameras?


----------



## tosullivan (21 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



Ravima said:


> will these things also warn of the mobile cameras?


basically, what it is is a Point of Interest Category that is on the sat nav.  You can set any of the POI's in any category to warn you when you come close to them.  So you just set the POI category for the list of speed cameras to warn you when you approach them.  You could drive along teh M7 from Naas to Portlaoise and the unit will beep at you over 10 times but never see a speed trap.


----------



## Fat Tony (22 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



Ravima said:


> will these things also warn of the mobile cameras?


Basically, no.


----------



## Miles (22 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*

Speed kills...


----------



## cerberos (22 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*

"speed kills" - totally agree

Better to have these signs flashing your speed, more traffic policemen and mobile cameras than fixed Speed Cameras which become revenue generators and do not stop speeding.

Also, people find out where they are and speed from camera to camera.

I think the flashing speed signs are great because they train the motorists to moderate their speed rather than punish. 
Its behaviour we need to work on.

Have the number of deaths eased with the point system and cameras?


----------



## tosullivan (22 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*

Speed cameras should be put in areas of danger.  So if your sat nav or any other system warns you in advance of these areas to watch your speed, then thats a good thing.  Speed cameras should not be revenue generators


----------



## ClubMan (22 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



Petermack said:


> I find the speed warning indicator on my wife's audi works as a great speed deterrent. You can set it to the speed limit and if you break the limit there is a beeping and the information display flashes that you are breaking the speed limit. Simple but effective.


Why would you not just watch the speedo and stick to the relevant speed limit?


----------



## tosullivan (23 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*

GPS units are also useful as Sat Navs.....!!!!!!!!!


----------



## sinbadsailor (23 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



cerberos said:


> "speed kills" - totally agree



Maybe "speed can be a factor in a road death, but not always the main cause of one?" or "The person who breaks the speed limit is not always the person at fault in a road daeth"

Our attitude to road deaths has to mature into something more logical and scientific I think


----------



## Niallman (23 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



sinbadsailor said:


> Maybe "speed can be a factor in a road death, but not always the main cause of one?" or "The person who breaks the speed limit is not always the person at fault in a road daeth"
> 
> Our attitude to road deaths has to mature into something more logical and scientific I think


 
What sort of an idiotic statement is that to make?! True, the person travelling at speed may have nothing to do with the cause of the accident, but the fact that they are travelling too fast reduces their time to react and seriously increases the damage the tonne of metal they are guiding around can cause.

I think its YOUR attitude to road death is the one that has to mature.


----------



## Miles (23 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



sinbadsailor said:


> Maybe "speed can be a factor in a road death, but not always the main cause of one?" or "The person who breaks the speed limit is not always the person at fault in a road daeth"
> 
> Our attitude to road deaths has to mature into something more logical and scientific I think



Speed is the number one killer on our roads today and thats fact or in your words, scientific. Totally agree with Niallman


----------



## sinbadsailor (24 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



Niallman said:


> What sort of an idiotic statement is that to make?! True, the person travelling at speed may have nothing to do with the cause of the accident, but the fact that they are travelling too fast reduces their time to react and seriously increases the damage the tonne of metal they are guiding around can cause.
> 
> I think its YOUR attitude to road death is the one that has to mature.



Listen I knew I would get hammered on that one!. I don't condone speeding, I don't speed much myself and I know that increased speed *increases* the *risk* of an accident due to the factors you posed above but I also don't agree with big paintbrush attitudes that target single factors in any situation.

Look at all factors in a raod death, the age and make/model of car, the surrounding road surface, the speed of the colliding vehicle, the sex of the driver, the age of the driver, drink taken, use of mobile phone, doing makeup, arguing with a passenger....all these can cause an accident?


----------



## sinbadsailor (24 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



Miles said:


> Speed is the number one killer on our roads today and thats fact or in your words, scientific. Totally agree with Niallman



So speed limit reduction is proportional to road death reduction then? Well if thats the case why doesnt the govt just cut speed limits in half, job done!


----------



## Persius (24 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



Miles said:


> Speed is the number one killer on our roads today and thats fact or in your words, scientific. Totally agree with Niallman


 
I think actually drivers are the number one killer on our roads today.

What you're probably refering to is the fact/belief that _inappropriate_ speed for the condition of road being driven on is the number one contributory factor for road deaths. By condition of road I don't just mean road surface, but also all the usual things like amount of traffic, visibility, vehicle etc.

There's no speed limit on large sections of the German Autobahn network, and the accident rate there is no higher than anywhere else.


----------



## redchariot (24 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*

Have to say that I have to agree. Speed is not the be all that ends all. You could travel at 140km/h down a motorway perfectly safely (20km/h over limit) but driving at the 80km/h limit on a wet country road could be potentially dangerous even though you are still within the legal speed. Not that I would condone driving 140km/h on a motorway.

I think as the previous poster stated, road conditions are a bigger factor in what the appropriate speed (still within legal limit of course). This includes the type of road e.g. straight or bendy, the conditon of the surface e.g, dry or wet, the weather e.g. clear or mist, time of day, you get the idea!!! Gardai would be far better spending their time catching people who drive at speeds inappropriate to the conditions than trying to catch somebody speeding on a motorway on a dry sunny day.


----------



## redchariot (24 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*

And not to forget those who overtake dangerously, drive with a hand-held mobile phone, drive too close to the person in front, not giving way at roundabouts etc.

Don't get me wrong, I agree, speed kills but so do all of the above. Gardai seem more obsessed catching people speeding than addressing other road safety issues.

For example, a couple of months ago, I was driving down the N33 near Ardee at the 100km/h limit and this idiot was right up my rear end. if I hit the brakes at all, he would have been into me. Went right by a Garda speed trap; did they come after the guy behind me? Not a chance!!! That summed it up for me.


----------



## mobileme (26 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



redchariot said:


> For example, a couple of months ago, I was driving down the N33 near Ardee at the 100km/h limit and this idiot was right up my rear end. if I hit the brakes at all, he would have been into me.


 
I drive that road everyday and this is a very common occurrence.

My response is to let the car naturally slow to 45mph and do a couple of miles at that speed. If they don't get the message, then I resort to tapping the brakes...usually makes them sit back a bit. A friend of mine puts on her hazard lights if someone travels too close to her car...she says it's a hazard and she's right!!


----------



## Niallman (26 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



mobileme said:


> I resort to tapping the brakes


 
You're no better than the person tail-gating you by doing that. You could cause a crash by tapping your breaks and causing the car behind to jump on the breaks or swerve. I know, I know, it'd be the other persons fault etc etc but do you really want all that hassle? And what if a pedestrian was injured or killed? 

If someone is tail-gating, just carry on as you are and let them do as they please or pull in and let them past if they're annoying you that much.


----------



## shnaek (26 Oct 2007)

I find it fascinating the way the government has once again abdicated resposibility in blaming the public for road deaths. 

It is an easy call. Obviously the driver is responsible. But who is responsible for the state of our roads? Who is responsible for providing an alternative to driving? Who is responsible for creating the conditions which have led to our commuter society?

We let them away with far too much. They lecture us and we take it like little puppies. Yes, the driver bears a certain responsibility, but the government also bears responsibility - and yet all they do is finger point and lecture.


----------



## truthseeker (26 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



mobileme said:


> A friend of mine puts on her hazard lights if someone travels too close to her car...she says it's a hazard and she's right!!


 
This is always how I respond to someone driving too close. It IS a hazard.


----------



## sinbadsailor (26 Oct 2007)

The thing that gets me in this country is that every other driver on the road is apart-time garda!

Why where they tailgating you? Were you driving to far under the speed limit. They obviously want to get past.

I would suggest that instead of trying to teach people a lession by tapping brakes etc, which is utterly stupid with vehicles in motion, how about letting them by or increasing your speed to the speed limit on that road.

Stop taking other drivers actions personally! It takes a better person and driver to be safe and let a faster driver pass you, it is not your place to police the roads!...phew!


----------



## Caveat (26 Oct 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> Why where they tailgating you? Were you driving to far under the speed limit. They obviously want to get past.


 
I certainly wouldn't assume there was any sort of valid reason for tailgating - there never is.  If someone wants to overtake - then just do it, provided it is safe/legal to do so. No-one should be under any obligation to make it easier for overtakers.

Tailgating is simply bullying and it's dangerous in itself.


----------



## tallpaul (26 Oct 2007)

Caveat said:


> I No-one should be under any obligation to make it easier for overtakers.


 
Wrong.

Page 46 of the new Rules of the Road:

*Continue at the same pace
*Keep as near to the left as is safe to do so
*Do not accelerate
*Be alert in case the overtaking vehicle suddenly pulls back in front of you


----------



## gebbel (27 Oct 2007)

*Re: Speed Cameras*



tosullivan said:


> *Both*.....
> 
> I have the file for almost all the garda locations in Ireland for my Tom Tom.


 
Where can I get this please?


----------



## colc1 (29 Oct 2007)

sorry but if people arent planning to break the law why would you need these??


----------



## shesells (29 Oct 2007)

Aren't speed camera detectors illegal?


----------



## Caveat (30 Oct 2007)

tallpaul said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Page 46 of the new Rules of the Road:
> 
> ...


 
OK, Haven't received the new ROTR, but I was referring to "no-one being under any obligation..." in the context of tailgating.  Surely the burden of responsibility/safe driving lies with the driver not to bully the car in front?


----------



## sinbadsailor (30 Oct 2007)

Caveat said:


> OK, Haven't received the new ROTR, but I was referring to "no-one being under any obligation..." in the context of tailgating.  Surely the burden of responsibility/safe driving lies with the driver not to bully the car in front?



I wouldn't condone tailgating, it is a dangerour practice. But you need a proper defintion of what is considered bullying. If a car approached you as you were travelling in the overtaking lane of a motorway and flashed his/her lights on approaching you in order for you to move over and let them continue without having to slow down, would you consider that bullying?

Another example is a string of traffic travelling well below the limit on a single carriageway road where you can see the car in front causing the holdup. They would be oblivious or ignorant to the other road users and are in fact causing a situation where frustration might make another driver do something dangerous.

The onus is on EVERYBODY to respect each other and be aware of ones surroundings at all times while driving I feel.


----------



## Caveat (30 Oct 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> I wouldn't condone tailgating, it is a dangerour practice. But you need a proper defintion of what is considered bullying. If a car approached you as you were travelling in the overtaking lane of a motorway and flashed his/her lights on approaching you in order for you to move over and let them continue without having to slow down, would you consider that bullying?


 
Maybe, if I was already travelling at the speed limit - but obviously it would be common sense to move over anyway.




sinbadsailor said:


> Another example is a string of traffic travelling well below the limit on a single carriageway road where you can see the car in front causing the holdup. They would be oblivious or ignorant to the other road users and are in fact causing a situation where frustration might make another driver do something dangerous.


 
Yes, I agree that this can be a problem.



sinbadsailor said:


> The onus is on EVERYBODY to respect each other and be aware of ones surroundings at all times while driving I feel.


 
I agree.


----------



## sinbadsailor (30 Oct 2007)

Caveat said:


> Maybe, if I was already travelling at the speed limit - but obviously it would be common sense to move over anyway.



You would think so, wouldn't you, but it seems to me that the majority of Irish drivers take being overtaken personally and actually resent moving over/giving way in filter situations etc. They would get some shock driving on the continent or even in the UK for that matter.

A proper case of the 'Im alright f** you Jack', or 'you aint getting in there mate' attitudes.

Sad really, as we are all judged by our worst drivers!


----------

