[Article] The only way to kill speed is to capture it on camera

seamus

Arse. I answered this last night, but boards b0rked.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

No I do not, as it is the product of the kind of mindset that perpetuates the current atrocious situation. Have you heard of 'victim blaming'? It's like where a rapist claims that the woman was 'asking for it' or 'should not have been out alone'.

As I've said already, changing the attitudes of motorists, yes, would reduce road deaths significantly. I don't deny that, and your logic is sound. But we've had this discussion before. I'm not "victim blaming". You can't deny that even if someone is the victim (i.e. the party that comes off worse in an accident) that doesn't immediately absolve them from blame. If you change the attitudes of motorists, pedestrians will still die from making stupid mistakes, albeit in smaller numbers because motorists would be reacting better to it. But some will still die. A motorist can do everything right and still kill a pedestrian.

Because that one group is responsible for most deaths and injury.

Agreed. But what's the point in reducing deaths in one area? Why not try to reduce deaths in all areas? What's the point in having motorists driving like saints, when pedestrians and cyclists are still ignoring the rules of the road, putting their lives and other lives at risk, not to mention terrorising the poor motorists who have to constantly brake cos some idiot stepped out in front of them, or the articulated lorry driver who's traumatised by the feeling of someone's bones crushing under his wheels?

Before you go to the whole "victim blaming" thing again, you need to get the preconception out of your head that pedestrians are always right, and everyone else is just getting in their way. The law already favours pedestrians very heavily. It's more than they receive in other countries. Ever been to India?
"Freedom of movement" does not apply to your right to walk down a street. It applies to your right to move from county to county, from city to city. It's not a specific right, it's a general one, to protect citizens from being forced to live in ghettoed certain areas. To try and claim your rights are being impinged by not being able to walk down a certain street makes a mockery of the reason that human right was declared.

secret_squirrel

Lets take the tagging argument to its logical conclusion shall we?

If we tag everyone we can do the following :

Monitor those people that use the smoking areas in pubs - tens of thousands of people die from smoking related diseases every year.

Ditto those spend too much time in MaccyD's - Obesity is the fastest growing health risk in the western world.

Both of those examples kill far more people than motor vehicles do.

There's only one drawback with both your and my ideas - nobody would want to live in a country where they are in place.

cyclopath2001

>>Agreed. But what's the point in reducing deaths in one area?

>>Lets take the tagging argument to its logical conclusion shall we?

Let's first be logical. The logical thing is to applying resources to where they will be most effective & using the minumum force & effort to achieve the maximum outcome. Focusing on the major causes of motor accidents is logical. Law-breaking & poor judgement by motorists is the major cause of accidents.

>>you need to get the preconception out of your head that pedestrians are always right,<<

I do not recall saying that pedestrians were always right.

In most accidents involving motorists & pedestrians, it is the motorist who is to blame. BTW, in Thomas Street today, I witnessed FOUR cars drive through a pedestrian crossing while the signal clearly favoured pedestrians. The pedestrians were about to cross when the cars purposefully & deliberately moved from a stopped position 20 metres away from the crossing and drove straight at them, against facing red lights. The motorists, including one taxi driver forced the pedestrians to return to the pavement.

Do you have better ideas for how to quickly & significantly reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads? (i.e. before many more people are killed and maimed)

That is the question under discussion.

mackerski

cyclopath2001 wrote:

In most accidents involving motorists & pedestrians, it is the motorist who is to blame.

Is this a supportable fact or more bluffing?

cyclopath2001 wrote:

BTW, in Thomas Street today, I witnessed FOUR cars drive through a pedestrian crossing while the signal clearly favoured pedestrians.

When caught, a motorist doing such a thing is subject to large fines, and, one would like to hope, points any day now.

What happens when a cyclist does this? At a rough estimate, what percentage of cyclists do you think routinely break red lights? You do accept that cyclists are a danger to pedestrians too?

Dermot

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Do you have better ideas for how to quickly & significantly reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads? (i.e. before many more people are killed and maimed)

Yes. Enforcement and education. There is nothing wrong with our current system. It's just undermanned and underenforced. If there were enough Gardai, and the ones who are currently about had more drive to do their job, things would be fine.

Poor judgement is probably the main cause of all accidents, and is something that can't be enforced by law. Education is the only way. Gardai can catch and stop people for poor judgement, making stupid manouvers, but they won't educate them. Said person will get a fine, head off muttering words about the Gardai, and won't learn a thing.

Monitoring would be a drastic move which would only serve to generate hatred and revolt. Many people would simply have theirs removed, or come up with some way around it. Not trusting people to do the right thing is totally the wrong way of going about anything (when they've had that trust for so long). Would you propose the same thing to solve our drink-related violence problems? Fit a monitor on every drinker that tells the Government how drunk a person is getting, so the Gardai can swoop in and keep an eye on those who are too drunk? After all, drinking is a choice, not a right, and causes social problems, terrorising many other people, and resulting in many deaths every year.

Victor

seamus wrote:

Monitoring would be a drastic move which would only serve to generate hatred and revolt.

In 2002, no aircraft passengers died worldwide (some pilots and crew did). The corresponding figure for road traffic accidents was in the order of 500,000 dead (probably 10m-20m injured). Perhaps black boxes should also be banned.

mackerski

We've had a lot of talk about "black boxes" for cars. Most of the (articulated) objections centre around the vague idea of privacy. A valid concern. Possibly not the main real concern of many objectors. After all, a black box would mean certain "justice" for all speed limit infractions (and be useless for most other offences...).

With this in mind, would those in favour of black boxes (especially those that don't believe that driving a car sends you straight to hell) search their souls and comment honestly on whether, in this world of zero-tolerance of limit-breaking, the limits should _really_ be set at the current levels. You see, there's a schools of thought out there that says that our evolved limits, set as they were in the days when detection and prosecution were very low, are actually quite a bit on the low side of what the authorities actually consider safe. (I'm obviously mostly talking about open-road limits here).

Because the simple truth is that, in a world where you got 2 points for every 32-in-a-30-zone offence, nobody would have a licence at all.

Far be it from me to suggest that that's what some of the contributors are hoping for...

Dermot

cyclopath2001

>>Is this a supportable fact or more bluffing?

Supportable, but not relevant to the topic. Let's stay on topic.

>>What happens when a cyclist does this?

We're side-tracking, the cyclist, if caught, would be subject to the same fine as a motorist & while I do not know what would happen here, in France, might get points on his/her drivers licence. In the situation I described, the pedestrians were obviously too frightened by the cars racing towards them to cross. It if were bicycles, they would probably have avoided each other.

>>Because the simple truth is that, in a world where you got 2 points for every 32-in-a-30-zone offence, nobody would have a licence at all. <<

Why not? The limit is 30mph. That's fast enough to kill someone. When I drive, I stay under the limit, it's the law & for good reason. It just takes a little practice and discipline. 30 is not a target, it's a limit to be reached in ideal conditions. Usually conditions are not ideal. In Spain, the urban speed limit is much lower.

>>Far be it from me to suggest that that's what some of the contributors are hoping for...<<

Nobody wants to ban all driving, just dangerous & anti-social drivers.

>>Yes. Enforcement and education.

Good, now how do we provide the Gardai with an efficient & fair means of enforcement?

mackerski

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Supportable, but not relevant to the topic. Let's stay on topic.

No, let's see you support your assertion - it was sufficiently on-topic for you to make it...

cyclopath2001 wrote:

We're side-tracking, the cyclist, if caught, would be subject to the same fine as a motorist

Not side-tracking at all. So far, you'll have us believe that motorists have full responsibility for road-safety and that other users have no part to play. As a motorist who already plays his part (and has to endure muppetry from both cyclists and pedestrians), I won't accept this kind of guff.

BTW, as a veteran cyclist, you will, of course, be aquainted with other advocates of the velocipede. Surely at least one of them has heard of a real case of a cyclist being fined for running red? No? Still feel we are all subject to the same enforcement?

cyclopath2001 wrote:

In the situation I described, the pedestrians were obviously too frightened by the cars racing towards them to cross. It if were bicycles, they would probably have avoided each other.

I think I remember that bit in the rules of the road: "When pedestrians and cyclists encounter each other due to one or other group running a red light, not to worry, just try to, you know, avoid each other". I also remember many cases of cyclists try to intimidate me (with my pedestrian hat on) out of my right of way. In fact, I'll admit to having been terrorised by the experience.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Why not? The limit is 30mph. That's fast enough to kill someone. When I drive, I stay under the limit, it's the law & for good reason. It just takes a little practice and discipline. 30 is not a target, it's a limit to be reached in ideal conditions. Usually conditions are not ideal. In Spain, the urban speed limit is much lower.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The general Spanish urban limit is 50km/h, which is a shade _above_ 30mph. They also have lower limits to be imposed as required, as we will from January. Congratulations if you have never strayed over the speed limit. I'm not sure why you are so proud of it, since, by your own admission, it is already lethally fast. I'd say, if I put my mind to it, I could kill a person from 10mph, but that doesn't mean I'll restrict my speed to 5 - instead, I look to road conditions and stopping distances. Of course, Motorists are actually forced to have working brakes on their vehicles, instead of just being obliged, which is a different thing.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Good, now how do we provide the Gardai with an efficient & fair means of enforcement?

We could start by being honest about exactly what they should be enforcing.

Dermot

cyclopath2001

>>No, let's see you support your assertion - it was sufficiently on-topic for you to make it...<<

http://www.doh.ie/pdfdocs/cmo02.pdf

"The contributory factors identified by the Gardaí
in fatal and injury accidents change little over the
years. Driver error is by far the commonest
contributory factor, at 82 per cent, followed by
pedestrian error at 11 per cent, road factors at 4
per cent, environmental factors at 2 per cent and
vehicle factors less than 1 per cent"

>>Not side-tracking at all. So far, you'll have us believe that motorists have full responsibility for road-safety and that other users have no part to play.<<

When did I say that "other users have no part to play"? You are distorting & mis-representing my views.

>>Surely at least one of them has heard of a real case of a cyclist being fined for running red?<<

Yes, indeed, he made a run for it (near Trinity College) when challenged, was caught & appeared in court. He got done for having no lights too. I've heard of and witnessed other instances of the Gardai stopping cyclists and motorists who break the law. Your point is?

>>I think I remember that bit in the rules of the road:<<

It was cars and not bicycles that drove at the pedestrians. No cyclist broke the law. Four drivers did so with impunity. I am sure that the motorists felt no fear when they drove at the pedestrians & forced them off the road. The cyclists that were present were all stopped legally behind their stop lines. Some could not even reach the junction as they were stuck behind cars & vans blocking the cycle lane.

>>We could start by being honest about exactly what they should be enforcing.<<

How about enforcing compliance with the law by people who ignore 'The Rules of the Road' while in charge of vehicles that are of a type statistically known to cause the greatest amount of death & injury when involved in a collision?

Now, how long before 'training and enforcement' will have a significant effect on deaths & injuries? Or is this a cover for maintaining the staus-quo?

seamus

11%? That's HUGE. If you said that environmental or vehicle factors weren't worth going after, that would be fine, but 11%? That is definitely a figure worth working on, as well as the 82%. I was arguing with the thought that it might 5-6% pedestrian error, but 11% is a big figure. Not insignificant in the slightest. Considering that all people are pedestrians, it's something we do on a constant basis, that figure should be nil or negligible. We should be experienced enough to make a good judgement call.

Again, if you're going to insist that motorists' attitudes are worked on, you'll have to include pedestrians in that, or that 11% figure will just grow and grow (as the 82% drops and drops).

How about enforcing compliance with the law by people who ignore 'The Rules of the Road' while in charge of vehicles that are of a type statistically known to cause the greatest amount of death & injury when involved in a collision?

How about enforcing compliance with the Rules of the Road, period? The law is for all, not for some.

How people react as pedestrians can usually be an indicator of how they'll act on the roads. Risk-taker pedestrians will take risks on the road. Compliant pedestrians will generally comply on the roads. It's not farfetched to think that instilling respect for the roads in our children, and adults, as regards walking, and particularly cycling, will help build a foundation of proper respect for the roads. The courtesy and common sense of motorists has gone to pot in this country, but then so has the courtesy and common sense of pedestrians. Drive into the city centre on a Friday or Saturday night, and it won't be more than 30 seconds before some idiot steps out in front of you, or continues to cross when the pedesrian light is red. 5 seconds later, a taxi driver will cut you off, then park right in front of you to pick up a passenger.

It's no coincidence.

cyclopath2001

>>How about enforcing compliance with the Rules of the Road, period? The law is for all, not for some.<<

Of course we should & it would be sensible that the effort should be biased towards the major hazards.

Now, what would be a most effective way to help the Gardai prevent death and injury through the mis-use of motor vehicles?

Do you favour speed cameras or satellite tracking?

seamus

it would be sensible that the effort should be biased towards the major hazards.

That would be wrong. The law is not biased, nor should it be.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Now, what would be a most effective way to help the Gardai prevent death and injury through the mis-use of motor vehicles?

Education and enforcement. We need more Gardai and a dedicated traffic corp.

Do you favour speed cameras or satellite tracking?

Speed cameras, yes, if they're unmarked, and people know they're unmarked. Satellite tracking is fine if it's voluntary, I've no problem with people signing up by choice and availing of cheaper insurance. As a tool to be used by the Government though, no.

Although a black box system as suggested by Victor mightn't be too bad. It could contain the vehicles history, to protect the buyer, and could help in crash investigations, by giving a clearer view of what happened just before the crash. Twould require a drastic change in older and cheaper cars though.

pickarooney

1. Speed limiters in all vehicles

2. Cycle paths (ones that don't magically turn into bus lanes/taxi ranks) all over the country

3. A roof over Dublin

sliabh

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Do you favour speed cameras or satellite tracking?

I think that people that advocate technical solutions to these problems underestimate the cost and complexity involved. Satellite tracking can't even be used successfully for road tolling let alone enforcement of traffic laws:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3500269.stm

People often invest too much belief in these sort of systems. They are not a magic bullet. And this is speaking from experience, I am a Mechanical and a Computer Engineer.

And cyclopath2001, can you PLEASE use the same quote system as the rest of us?

Victor

seamus wrote:

The law is not biased, nor should it be.

The law is most certainly weighted.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote:

That would be wrong. The law is not biased, nor should it be.

I said bias the EFFORT, not the law.