Speeding: Your Views!!

I.S.T.

Wicknight, do you think ANY speed traps at all are set up with the purpose of raising extra revenue for the Guards or Government?

OldmanMondeo

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

It doesn't take a genius to work it out. Set up a hidden speed camera on the side of the N4, €80 per car caught speeding.

That camera across for the Spa Hotel is there years, there are signs on the N4 letting people know about it, I know I pass it every day. It is also over 1/2 mile from the end of the motor, which is clearly marked, motorway ends at Leixlip turnoff/ McCoys garage bridge. It is so well known that people have slowed from the speed limit to about 20kph under it.

mmenarry

Wicknight wrote:

Dangerous drivers are drivers who do not obey the speed limit.

You might want to clarify that. If you truly believe that speeding alone is "dangerous", then you clearly don't understand what makes a dangerous driver. I would suggest that you read "Roadcraft", the advanced driving instruction manual, used to train UK police drivers, and could well be used by the Gardai here during their training.

M.

Stark

Wicknight wrote:

There is no such thing as a dangerous road. A road is only dangerous if you have a dangerous driver on it. The speed cameras are not set up for the roads. They are set up for the drivers on the roads.

That's just dumb. Of course there are "dangerous roads". The death rate on motorways is tiny compared to country roads. Last time I checked, we weren't cherry picking an elite class of drivers to drive on our fantastic new motorways and shipping all the ****e drivers up to Donegal.

Wishbone Ash

Wicknight wrote:

I've no idea where you got the idea that the unrestricted speed limit made German motorways any safer.

It seems to be a common belief on Boards that unrestricted German Autobahns are safe.

I.S.T.

OldmanMondeo wrote:

That camera across for the Spa Hotel is there years, there are signs on the N4 letting people know about it, I know I pass it every day. It is also over 1/2 mile from the end of the motor, which is clearly marked, motorway ends at Leixlip turnoff/ McCoys garage bridge. It is so well known that people have slowed from the speed limit to about 20kph under it.

Well there ya go then, a speed camera doing the job it is supposed to be doing, causing drivers to go slower rather than emptying their wallets.

Kimbot

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

Well there ya go then, a speed camera doing the job it is supposed to be doing, causing drivers to go slower rather than emptying their wallets.

Yes but only until they pass the camera and then the go back to speeding again!! I nearly got creamed there a couple of weeks ago when a car sped out of the estate on the left hand side really wide and instead of staying in his own lane he entered into the lane right on front of me and swerved back into the other lane that he should have been in in anyway!!

Zombrex

Stark wrote:

That's just dumb. Of course there are "dangerous roads".

When was the last time a road ever killed anyone?

I.S.T.

Wicknight wrote:

When was the last time a road ever killed anyone?

So why do they put up signs that say "Dangerous Bends Ahead"?

Stark

jonny24ie wrote:

I nearly got creamed there a couple of weeks ago when a car sped out of the estate on the left hand side really wide and instead of staying in his own lane he entered into the lane right on front of me and swerved back into the other lane that he should have been in in anyway!!

The funny thing is he was probably doing the posted limit but doing it in suicidal fashion, ie: while going round the corner. Which is the message many people are trying to get across: Driving safety isn't about doing the legal speed, it's about doing the appropriate speed. Having a speed checkpoint at that point would have done no good, because 60km/hr around a corner is still plain ****ing crazy.

Mitch Connor

Wicknight wrote:

IF someone actually is caught speeding. What is the cost of the Guards salaries, the cost of the car and the camera equipment, the cost of the administration of the work etc etc.

The Guard is getting paid anyway, more aren't being employed to man speed checks - so that is not relevant.

The car is already there, and would be anyway. they are not buying more cars to get guards to speed traps - so that is not relevant.

Camera equipment and Admin costs are the only two you have mentioned that could be a factor.

The camera's are generally old (as complained about by guards) so their cost will have been absorbed by now, and i can't imagine admin costs actually being that high (regardless of what figure they actually put on it).

At this point in time, i'd say easily 75% of a speeding fine is 'profit'. I can't back this up of course, but i'd be surprised if the figures were all that different, and would question the validity of the figures if they did (as i am sure you will with mine)

Kimbot

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

So why do they put up signs that say "Dangerous Bends Ahead"?

Its only danerous when you are going too fast for them!!

Stark

Wicknight wrote:

When was the last time a road ever killed anyone?

Okay, it's been a few years since I did English in school, but I'm pretty sure the word "dangerous" can be applied to inanimate objects.

I mean I've never had a sharp knife try to kill me on its own, but I still think it's okay to call them dangerous.

Kimbot

Stark wrote:

The funny thing is he was probably doing the posted limit but doing it in suicidal fashion, ie: while going round the corner. Which is the message many people are trying to get across: Driving safety isn't about doing the legal speed, it's about doing the appropriate speed. Having a speed checkpoint at that point would have done no good, because 60km/hr around a corner is still plain ****ing crazy.

No cos the speed he came round was continous and I was doing 75kmph he was actually gone up the road and through the lights weel ahead of me!! It was more like he nearly ran into the side of mebut was going fater than me if you get what I mean?

Zombrex

mmenarry wrote:

You might want to clarify that. If you truly believe that speeding alone is "dangerous", then you clearly don't understand what makes a dangerous driver. I would suggest that you read "Roadcraft", the advanced driving instruction manual, used to train UK police drivers, and could well be used by the Gardai here during their training.

M.

Of course I don't think "speeding alone" is what makes a dangerous driver. I assumed we were not talking about specially trained an authorised drivers such as police or ambulance drivers, since there is a different set of instructions for them and laws for them (only when on the job of course)

A dangerous driver speeds, amount other things. That isn't all they do of course. Someone driving in reverse while blindfolded into an intersection is still a dangerous driver, even if they are under the speed limit. It would be nonsense to claim otherwise.

An interesting study done in England showed that rally drivers were more likely to be in traffic accidents than the average driver. This initially ran country to the idea that a rally driver, because they are used to controlling the car at high speeds, should be a better driver. But the study found that they were more likely to take part in "risky" driving, probably due to over confidence, when driving in a normal car on normal streets.

Mitch Connor

jonny24ie wrote:

Its only danerous when you are going too fast for them!!

but you could still be under the legal speed limit - the back roads up towards Powers Court gardens are lethal, but have an 80kph limit, even with the bends.

As has been said, it should be about appropriate speed for the situation, and sometimes the legal limit is below what is appropriate, which is what can annoy people when they get caught for speeding on these sections. Granted, they should not have been speeding, but it is annoying when you can be a far more dangerous driver doing the speed limit on one road then you are doing a few kph over on a motorway or DC. More emphasis should be placed on appropriate speed for the overall conditions.

Stark

jonny24ie wrote:

No cos the speed he came round was continous and I was doing 75kmph he was actually gone up the road and through the lights weel ahead of me!! It was more like he nearly ran into the side of mebut was going fater than me if you get what I mean?

I got the impression he nearly creamed you as he came careening round the corner and swung too wide?

Kimbot

Stark wrote:

I got the impression he nearly creamed you as he came careening round the corner and swung too wide?

Yeah I was just changing lane cos I was going to turn right at the lights so in a way I am very lucky!

Zombrex

Stark wrote:

Okay, it's been a few years since I did English in school, but I'm pretty sure the word "dangerous" can be applied to inanimate objects.

I mean I've never had a sharp knife try to kill me on its own, but I still think it's okay to call them dangerous.

As I said, when was the last time a road ever killed anyone.

I can think of plenty of times a knife has killed someone. The only time I can think of a road ever killing someone is during a mud slide.

The road isn't dangerous, and it isn't what kills people. Its the car that kills people and the drivers in the cars.

Zombrex

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

So why do they put up signs that say "Dangerous Bends Ahead"?

To get you to slow the feck down.

If you were walking on the road and you knew there were no cars allowed on it would you give a crap about a sign that said "Dangerous Bends Ahead"?

No, of course not. The bends aren't dangerous to you, the road itself isn't dangerous. It is the idiots in the cars who are going to fast to control the car on the road that is the "danger"

To get back to the original point, targetting specific roads is a waste of time. A road is only dangerous if you have a dangerous driver on it. You need to target the dangerous drivers themselves. And you can do this anywhere.

I.S.T.

Wicknight wrote:

As I said, when was the last time a road ever killed anyone.

I can think of plenty of times a knife has killed someone. The only time I can think of a road ever killing someone is during a mud slide.

The road isn't dangerous, and it isn't what kills people. Its the car that kills people and the drivers in the cars.

Have a look at these signs...

http://www.irishmotoring.ie/car/rulesoftheroad/rules_of_the_road_traffic_signs_and_signals.php

There are signs for "Dangerous Corner Ahead", "Series of Dangerous Corners Ahead" and "Series of Dangerous Bends Ahead"

Are you suggesting that we change the rules of the roads now as there is no such thing as a dangerous road/bend/corner?

mmenarry

Wicknight wrote:

Of course I don't think "speeding alone" is what makes a dangerous driver. I assumed we were not talking about specially trained an authorised drivers such as police or ambulance drivers, since there is a different set of instructions for them and laws for them (only when on the job of course)

A dangerous driver speeds, amount other things. That isn't all they do of course. Someone driving in reverse while blindfolded into an intersection is still a dangerous driver, even if they are under the speed limit. It would be nonsense to claim otherwise.

So you would admit then, that speeding itself, under certain conditions, is not enough to be dangerous, yes? Which is the point of "appropriate speed" - the "safe speed limit" in a situation is not governed by the posted speed limits, but the driving environment and conditions? This "safe speed limit" may be above or below the posted speed limit.

Your note about "professional" drivers is a bit irrelevant - included in their training is how to drive safely - whether above or below the posted speed limit. To quote a UK Police Advanced Driving Instructor friend of mine "The speed is either safe or not - even on the job, or in an emergency situation, I am only going to drive as fast as makes sure I get home to my wife & kids". He'll be the first to tell you that advanced driving concentrates on safety, not "how to drive faster"

Wicknight wrote:

An interesting study done in England showed that rally drivers were more likely to be in traffic accidents than the average driver. This initially ran country to the idea that a rally driver, because they are used to controlling the car at high speeds, should be a better driver. But the study found that they were more likely to take part in "risky" driving, probably due to over confidence, when driving in a normal car on normal streets.

I think it was Jackie Stewart who noted that F1 was safer than road driving as "there aren't any cars coming in the opposite direction"

M.

I.S.T.

Wicknight wrote:

To get you to slow the feck down.

If you were walking on the road and you knew there were no cars allowed on it would you give a crap about a sign that said "Dangerous Bends Ahead"?

No, of course not. The bends aren't dangerous to you, the road itself isn't dangerous. It is the idiots in the cars who are going to fast to control the car on the road that is the "danger"

To get back to the original point, targetting specific roads is a waste of time. A road is only dangerous if you have a dangerous driver on it. You need to target the dangerous drivers themselves. And you can do this anywhere.

Let me rephrase my original point as you seem to be a bit pedantic. The guards should be targetting the roads where most accidents occur (I called them dangerous roads in my previous post), not the roads where they will earn the most money.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

As I said, when was the last time a road ever killed anyone.

I can think of plenty of times a knife has killed someone. The only time I can think of a road ever killing someone is during a mud slide.

The road isn't dangerous, and it isn't what kills people. Its the car that kills people and the drivers in the cars.

This is really silly.
Why do you think the council put up accident blackspot signs?
Not because everyone who crashed there is a dangerous driver..

Because the road is decepitive or does the opposite of what drivers expect. Driver behavour is only a part of that. Granted if people drove around everywhere at 30mph this may be less likely to happen but who in their right mind does that.

Wishbone Ash

Tauren wrote:

The Guard is getting paid anyway, more aren't being employed to man speed checks - so that is not

But that is a very simplified view. These Gardaí resources could be used doing something more useful if speeding wasn't a big issue.

Drunks cause havoc in the A&E departments of our hospitals at weekends. Do you think that this costs nothing as the staff are getting paid anyway?

Stark

Wicknight wrote:

As I said, when was the last time a road ever killed anyone.

I can think of plenty of times a knife has killed someone. The only time I can think of a road ever killing someone is during a mud slide.

The road isn't dangerous, and it isn't what kills people. Its the car that kills people and the drivers in the cars.

Don't you mean "the knife isn't dangerous, the person holding the knife is dangerous"?

Wishbone Ash

ronoc wrote:

Because the road is decepitive or does the opposite of what drivers expect

"Always Expect the Unexpected!"

um7y1h83ge06nx

I'm not going to get into the argument here because it's pointless.

But I do have a story. One of the lads I'm staying with is a paramedic. Before he was staying here he was in Dublin. One night he got called out to an accident and arrived to find one of the drivers was decapitated. A piece of another car came in through the windscreen and did the damage.

So he took his body out of the driver's seat and reached into the back of the car to retrieve the head. He said it was a pretty horrible scene. Speeding was supposedly a major factor in the accident.

True story. That's all I need to know about speeding.

Kimbot

Hadleigh Colossal Ultrasound wrote:

I'm not going to get into the argument here because it's pointless.

But I do have a story. One of the lads I'm staying with is a paramedic. Before he was staying here he was in Dublin. One night he got called out to an accident and arrived to find one of the drivers was decapitated. A piece of another car came in through the windscreen and did the damage.

So he took his body out of the driver's seat and reached into the back of the car to retrieve the head. He said it was a pretty horrible scene. Speeding was supposedly a major factor in the accident.

True story. That's all I need to know about speeding.

If i remember rightly that was around about the NAAS road there!! If not its similar to what happened there!!

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote:

"Always Expect the Unexpected!"

I don't think there is any sensible debate left in this thread:)