"Speed Cameras: the twisted truth" (only 7% of accidents due to excess speed proof!)

Pete4779

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2007/11/10/mfspeed10.xml&page=1

This is an essential article to read for those who want more speed cameras and believe the Gay Byrne theories of driving. It's also essential support for the majority of the population that haven't been sucked into the "speed = dangerous" educational advertising over recent years.

It's well written and lengthy at three pages.

It also refers clearly to the evidence that:
- excessive speed is a contributory factor in only 7.3% of road accidents

Also, that of that 7.3%, the "excessive speed" is 70% of the time within the speed limit - basically
- that driving above the speed limit is a factor in 2.19% of road accidents.

I do not believe the introduction of speed cameras in Ireland will reduce road deaths. I think, as the evidence from the UK is showing, that road deaths will *increase* if we have privatised cameras.

Here is the URL from my previous post on the subject:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055159628&highlight=Speed+Cameras

Anyone who says that excessive speed is a major contributor to road accidents has no evidence and is lying. Anyone who criticises those who break the speed limit for contributing to a decline in road safetly has no evidence, is lying and is also clearly dangerous by pushing mistruths - they should probably be taken off the road themselves.

we can therefore see that adding speed cameras to stop people breaking the speed limit will reduce 2.2% of road accidents - if they are 100% successful. Maybe it's time to get all the learners and uneducated drivers off the roads and tackle the 97.8% of causes of road accidents instead.

stratos

I liked the french response to single car late night accidents, they cut down the trees at the side of the rural roads, viva le velocite vive la france !!!

stratos

ok my french needs work.

Potential-Monke

It's definately not speed that causes accidents. All you ahve to do is watch drivers, well, drive and you'll see what causes accidents. I was coming home the other night, and there was a car turning right 3 cars in front of me. THe first car tried to get past by legally undertaking, but couldn't, so the traffic stopped. Next thing this muppet in his little clio started to fly by everyone on the right, nearly hitting the car turning right and a car coming against him. He just managed to stop behind the car turning right.

Then, the car turning right did so, and the 3 cars in front of me took off, and the prick in the clio pulled out violently in front of me nearly hitting me. I duely noted the reg and followed him, seeing where he was going, and in the 2 minute drive following that he started to take turns, while with his phone up to his ear, without indicating.

He should be getting a visit form a Garda soon, i never saw such blatent disregard for other road users. I couldn't care less if that muppet drove into a wall at 600mph while on the phone and killed himself, but when people start risking other peoples lives by not being considerate, than i get pissed off.

JHMEG

Every incidence of potentially fatal driving I've witnessed has involved speed and stupidity. Tools in big Mercs, Golf TDIs, lorries, Civics, Glanzas and the like, overtaking dangeously on two way roads.

Speed alone is not a killer. Coming to a sudden stop is. [I'm paraphrasing Clarkson here]

Pete4779

Potential-Monke wrote: »

He should be getting a visit form a Garda soon, i never saw such blatent disregard for other road users. I couldn't care less if that muppet drove into a wall at 600mph while on the phone and killed himself, but when people start risking other peoples lives by not being considerate, than i get pissed off.

Well in my opinion the Gardai and Judges should be getting these people off the roads, and they have the laws and tools and ability to do it but they do not have the intention or the will.

DublinDilbert

There's usually not just one cause to an accident... there is normally several, eg bad tyres + wet road + driving too fast for conditions + someone pulling out from a side road, and the next thing you know you have an accident...

speed is probably not the only factor, but it is definitely a factor... when your going slower you have more time to react to things happening...

when an experienced & well trained driver spots a potential hazard up ahead they will ease off, possibly just dropping their speed by 10mph, then if something happens they have an extra couple of seconds to try avoid an accident.

artanevilla

There's accidents, then there's fatal accidents, which I think a greater percentage would be speed related.

wil

Pete4779 wrote: »

. It's also essential support for the majority of the population that haven't been sucked into the "speed = dangerous" educational advertising over recent years.

The only section of your post I differ with.

A large majority of Irish drivers DO think that speed is the main cause of accidents. It excuses them their poor driving standard and stupid actions.

I have witnessed many accidents here and in approximately NONE of them was EXCESSIVE SPEED the cause of the accident. (odd in many more miles of driving in the UK I was witness to none)

Wrong side of road, alcohol, breaking red lights, not stopping to check at junctions, mobile phones, failure to observe, failure to signal, poor anticipation, suicidal impatience, and chronic stupidity etc etc etc.

Speed causes very few accidents. It is a major factor AFTER you have decided to have an accident in determining whether you live or not.
Personally I think the best idea is to decide not to have the accident, then you can drive relatively quickly and very safely at the same time.
You need everyone else to join in for this to truly work. That is why driving in the UK is a far safer and relaxing experience.

Senna

But that 7% stat doesn't record the number of people killed in the accident, as speeding will result in a much larger crash and potentially more victims.
Also the link says 7% of road accidents, what percentage is speeding a factor in road deaths (i.e how many fatal car accidents was speeding a factor). Is this accident figure including fender-benders and other minor accidents?
Excuse me if i missed this, i only had a quick read through the link.

I am against the whole fixed speed camera plan, not because i think Speed = Good, but because i think it will have no impact on our road death figures in the long term. It will be a money making scam.

Padraig Mor

Senna wrote: »

what percentage is speeding a factor in road deaths .

The problem is that most people do not seem to realise that there is a big difference between speed being a factor in fatal accidents and being the cause of the accident.

Put simply, most fatal accidents are caused by bad driving and exasperated - but not caused - by speed. IIRC the number one cause of fatal accidents in Ireland is being on the wrong side of the road.

cormie

How are they in the UK on speeding in general? I was there just last week and doing 80mph on the motorway (very safe to do so on the motorways there), overtook a car as I was going 80 and very quickly, 2 police cars came up from behind, I went into the middle lane safely etc and they weren't close enough to be tailgating me and they zoomed past at what must have been 100-110mph, again, safely.

I think I heard before that they can detect your speed from behind, they could have easily and probably knew I was going over 70 anyway, but didn't. In fact I'd say 80% + of drivers (besides artics/busses etc) go at least 80mph over there, and with 3 lanes of a packed motorway going speeds of 80mph, I feel it's just as safe, if not safer than a 100kmph stretch of dual carriageway or motorway here. Their drivers are educated, ours aren't. Then there's France, oh what a pleasure it is to drive in France, limits of 130kmph. Everyone is bombing along but it's sooo safe, indicate, overtake, indicate, into driving lane, keep distance, the way it's supposed to be.

dcGT

cormie wrote: »

I was there just last week and doing 80mph on the motorway (very safe to do so on the motorways there), overtook a car as I was going 80 and very quickly, 2 police cars came up from behind, I went into the middle lane safely etc and they weren't close enough to be tailgating me and they zoomed past at what must have been 100-110mph, again, safely.

I noticed the exact same thing on more than one visit. Very good lane discipline over there too.

DC.

Alun

On motorways in the UK, you won't get pulled over for 80mph, or even a bit faster as long as you're driving safely. Get over 90mph, and you're chancing it, especially if you're driving even a bit erratically or dangerously. You do have to watch out for overhead speed gantries and the like in places like the M25 though .. they're a bit more, shall we say, 'inflexible' in the way they operate Also, the Traffic Police over there are highly trained professionals and really know what they're doing, so 110mph is nothing to them.

E92

UK Motoways have a design speed of 100 mph(160 km/h). So clearly anything up to 100 mph is prefectly safe there. Why they have a limit of only 70 mph then is ridiculous. And while it was around 4-5 years ago when I was there, in the UK everbody went at at least 80 mph on the Motorway(when traffic flow was low enough to do so).

And btw the you cant get points or get any penalties for speeding in the UK. Its only in Northern Ireland where the common points system operates.

As for speed camera stats, its time a bit of reality like what the Telegraph says to be taken seriously, but of course if we didn't focus on speeding, we couldn't get the chance to screw the motorist and raise the Government extra cash:rolleyes:.

ballooba

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I was coming home the other night, and there was a car turning right 3 cars in front of me. THe first car tried to get past by legally undertaking, but couldn't, so the traffic stopped.

What makes you think this manouveur was illegal? Overtaking on the left is legal if the overtaken car is turning right.

DublinDilbert wrote: »

speed is probably not the only factor, but it is definitely a factor... when your going slower you have more time to react to things happening...

That's a good argument for bringing back the red flag*.

*Person walking in front of the car waving a red flag.

artanevilla wrote: »

There's accidents, then there's fatal accidents, which I think a greater percentage would be speed related.

No. Statistics are for fatal accidents.

Senna wrote: »

But that 7% stat doesn't record the number of people killed in the accident, as speeding will result in a much larger crash and potentially more victims.

Whatever way you cut it the figures are quite low. In Ireland our dubious statistics say less than 33%. In NI the slightly less dubious figures say 20% of Killed and Seriously Injured.

E92 wrote: »

UK Motoways have a design speed of 100 mph(160 km/h).

What's the design speed of Irish motorways? I'm presuming it's significantly higher than the permitted 120km/h?

RobAMerc

Speed is always a factor in an accident - simply because there is no good speed to hit another object.
If you walk into a poll on the path - speed is a factor is it not ?

Anyway my point is - The Irish government has been using speed as a scapegoat for poor roads, inadequate driver training, as a nice little money earner and to take the spotlight off much bigger problems ( eg why don't we have a medivac, would it not save lives )

The Speed cameras will do nothing for road safety - they will however frustrate, and tax those of us who do use our car as their primary form of transport.

I see the introduction of the cameras as exactly the same as raising road tax, a money spinner hidden behind the guise of "green" or "safety" policies.

Unfortunately not enough people will read this article here.

PS: we should start a email campaign and everyone from boards should mail this article to the minister for transport

ballooba

RobAMerc wrote: »

Unfortunately not enough people will read this article here.

PS: we should start a email campaign and everyone from boards should mail this article to the minister for transport

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=28263

Victor

Pete4779, what are the percentages for fatalities?

Energy is proportional tot eh square of the speed. Traveling at 100km/h a vehicle has 4 times as much energy as one at 50km/h. The faster the vehicle the harder it hits and the more people get killed. You are quoting the wrong figures. PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR BLOATED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS THAT INCLUDES 2km/h FENDER BENDERS.

edit: no personal insults Victor!

Pete4779

That's clearly a personal attack Victor. If you have a problem with the numbers the Telegraph used, then show me some ones that back up what you have said regarding the statistics. You could also apologise for the personal atack but I leave that up to you and to whatever rules Boards.ie has.
Breaking the speed limit is a cause of around 2.2% of road traffic accidents. This is a fact. There is a marketing campaign to convince people that breaking the speed limit is the main cause of road traffic accidents. That is *not* true and the evidence does not exist.

Victor wrote:
edit: no personal insults Victor!

Introducing speed cameras to fine people for breaking speed limits by even 2km/h is tackling ~2.2% of the cause of the road traffic accidents.

So, should we be tackling the 2.2%? Or should Gay Byrne et al concentrate on the cause of the other ~98% of road accidents.

Show me your numbers and evidence for speed cameras and their effectiveness (because the evidence says they don't work - which makes sense as breaking the limit is the reason for a tiny 2.2% portion of road accidents). I don't think you can find any evidence to support an argument against mine.

Victor

Pete4779 wrote: »

That's clearly a personal attack Victor.

Bite me - "uneducated, opinionated gobshíte." is true. Your comments are just as insulting.

Show me your numbers and evidence for speed cameras and their effectiveness (because the evidence says they don't work - which makes sense as breaking the limit is the reason for a tiny 2.2% portion of road accidents).

How about you show something that they don't work? Seeing as you started the thread, its your hypothesis. :rolleyes: Have a look at the Irish figures http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/2005%20Road%20Collision%20Facts.pdf

We've been through this discussion many times and anti speed camera posters only post information from the UK, not here. Independence where are you.

But hey, speed cameras in the UK are so effective that "excessive speed is a contributory factor in only 7.3% of road accidents". They seem to be working.

ManAboutCouch

Pete4779 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2007/11/10/mfspeed10.xml&page=1

This is an essential article to read for those who want more speed cameras and believe the Gay Byrne theories of driving. It's also essential support for the majority of the population that haven't been sucked into the "speed = dangerous" educational advertising over recent years.

It's well written and lengthy at three pages.

Well written it may be, but the data that it is based upon is utterly bogus. George Monbiot had an article about it in The Guardian the other day (available here)

A couple of quotes from Monbiot's response..

Why do Booker and North not tell their readers that the statistics had been corrected and still showed a major decline in the number of accidents?

All these people turn, as a final resort, to a man by the name of Paul Smith, who runs a campaign called Safe Speed. He’s quoted everywhere whenever there is a speeding story in the news. He claims to have found, through statistical analysis, that “speed cameras make our roads more dangerous.”

....

So just what is the status of his evidence? Beside the statements on his website, Smith lists “source, justification and links”. His central claim is as follows: “We simply don’t believe that a significant proportion of accidents are caused by exceeding the speed limit.” If he cannot demonstrate that this is true, his entire case collapses. Its source, justification and links? He cites this and only this. “Pure opinion, based on considerable driving experience.”

Senna

ballooba wrote: »

Whatever way you cut it the figures are quite low. In Ireland our dubious statistics say less than 33%. In NI the slightly less dubious figures say 20% of Killed and Seriously Injured.

what i meant was, unless its figures of accident fatalities, then the stats dont really prove anything about the worthiness of speed camera.
There are so many good reasons for not introducing speed camera, that the comments of ' a well, sure its only X% where people are killed' is probably the worse argument against speed cameras.

Is there not some fact that you're most likely to be kill in an accident with 10 miles of your own home. I doubt many people are going to be caught speed by fixed cameras in areas they know well.
Not very scientific, just a though.

copacetic

Pete4779 wrote: »

Show me your numbers and evidence for speed cameras and their effectiveness (because the evidence says they don't work - which makes sense as breaking the limit is the reason for a tiny 2.2% portion of road accidents). I don't think you can find any evidence to support an argument against mine.

How effective are speed cameras in reducing speeds and crashes?

In Victoria, Australia, speed cameras were introduced in late 1989, and police reported that within 3 months the number of offenders triggering photo radar decreased 50 percent.
The percentage of vehicles significantly exceeding the speed limit decreased from about 20 percent in 1990 to fewer than 4 percent in 1994.

A Norwegian study found that injury crashes were reduced by 20 percent on sections of rural roads with cameras.

Research from British Columbia, Canada, showed a 7 percent decline in crashes and 20 percent fewer deaths the first year cameras were used. The proportion of speeding vehicles declined from 66 percent to fewer than 40 percent, and researchers attributed a 10 percent decline in daytime injuries to photo radar.

A detailed analysis of speed camera enforcement in Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom, reported that injury crashes in the immediate vicinity of camera sites were reduced 46 percent.

One of the most ambitious efforts to control traffic speeds on a heavily traveled urban highway is on the M25, which circles London. Speed cameras are used in conjunction with a system of variable speed limits that are adjusted based on weather and traffic conditions. The impact of introducing this combination of variable speed limits and photo enforcement has been an estimated reduction in injury crashes of 10 percent.

Niall1234

Victor wrote: »

Bite me - "uneducated, opinionated gobshíte." is true. Your comments are just as insulting.

How about you show something that they don't work? Seeing as you started the thread, its your hypothesis. :rolleyes: Have a look at the Irish figures http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/2005%20Road%20Collision%20Facts.pdf

We've been through this discussion many times and anti speed camera posters only post information from the UK, not here. Independence where are you.

But hey, speed cameras in the UK are so effective that "excessive speed is a contributory factor in only 7.3% of road accidents". They seem to be working.

In fairness though, how many fatal crashes on motorways or HQDC's are speed related, especially considering that this is where practically all the Gatso's will be going.

Pete4779

Niall1234 wrote: »

In fairness though, how many fatal crashes on motorways or HQDC's are speed related, especially considering that this is where practically all the Gatso's will be going.

This is what I think will happen, and there is no evidence that putting speed cameras over British motorways made them safer than German autobahns with no speed limits and no cameras.

It's a revenue generation exercise before it's a safety exercise, that is clear.

Pete4779

Victor wrote: »

Bite me - "uneducated, opinionated gobshíte." is true. Your comments are just as insulting.

How about you show something that they don't work? Seeing as you started the thread, its your hypothesis. :rolleyes: Have a look at the Irish figures http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/2005%20Road%20Collision%20Facts.pdf

We've been through this discussion many times and anti speed camera posters only post information from the UK, not here. Independence where are you.

But hey, speed cameras in the UK are so effective that "excessive speed is a contributory factor in only 7.3% of road accidents". They seem to be working.

Thank you for that link, it's useful to my argument.

On page 39 (37 of the PDF file), we read that of the 360 Fatal and Injury Collisions classified by road type, the grand total of 3 (THREE!) occurred on a motorway.

That means that <1% of all road fatalities occur on a motorway according to our own Irish statistics.

This is where I stand on the matter:
a) Motorways are not the place for speed cameras.
b) Breaking the speed limit is not unduly dangerous on a motorway.
c) That there are more worthy targets of fatal and non-fatal road accidents than looking for people speeding at 10kmph over the limit on a clear motorway.
d) That we could move to higher motorway speed limits due the inherent safety of high speed travel on motorways.
e) That there are increasing amounts of evidence that speed cameras are used to the detriment of other safety measures in countries that use them extensively (like the UK).

Are any of these unreasonable suggestions?

jimmycrackcorm

Does it occur to anyone else that the road safety campaigns concentrate on that which is easily measurable, i.e measuring speed and alcohol. Tiredness is another signifcant factor but because there are no breathylisers or speed guns for tiredness it gets ignored.

Anan1

Victor wrote: »

Pete4779, what are the percentages for fatalities?

Energy is proportional tot eh square of the speed. Traveling at 100km/h a vehicle has 4 times as much energy as one at 50km/h. The faster the vehicle the harder it hits and the more people get killed. You are quoting the wrong figures. PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR BLOATED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS THAT INCLUDES 2km/h FENDER BENDERS.

You uneducated, opinionated gobshíte.

When throwing that kind of abuse around, Victor, you should at least take the time to ensure that you've got your facts right. As any schoolchild will tell you, momentum (energy) is proportional to velocity (speed).

professore

Victor wrote: »

Pete4779, what are the percentages for fatalities?

Energy is proportional tot eh square of the speed. Traveling at 100km/h a vehicle has 4 times as much energy as one at 50km/h. The faster the vehicle the harder it hits and the more people get killed. You are quoting the wrong figures. PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR BLOATED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS THAT INCLUDES 2km/h FENDER BENDERS.

You uneducated, opinionated gobshíte.

Much as I dislike his tone I am afraid that Victor is spot on. Kinetic Energy (energy required to get something travelling at speed x to come to a dead stop or to get it from a dead stop to speed x - strictly speaking it's work rather than energy but whatever)



Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mass x velocity ^2.

So assume 1000 kg vehicle then:

50 km/h : 1000/2 x 50 ^ 2 = 1250000
10 km/h : 1000/2 x 100 ^ 2 = 500000 = 125000 * 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Kinetic_energy

the_syco

Pete4779 wrote: »

It also refers clearly to the evidence that:
- excessive speed is a contributory factor in only 7.3% of road accidents

I call "excessive speed" above 150km/h. What do you call excessive?

Ye see the thing is, 90km/h isn't excessive, but if you can't drive for sh|t, driving at 50km/h can be dangerous.