Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
This made me smile - For the love of God do what you say Gaybo and go!
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Right this is it. After this post I'm getting out of this discussion because it's winding me up so much.
To quote Swinging Looney from another post:You became dangerous the second you started moving. You're right in saying that it's not SPEEDING that causes accidents or deaths. It's simply speed itself.
Which I think is the most sensible thing that has been said about this topic. You can not crash a stationary car. You can not kill a pedestrian if you are not moving. Most people here seem to be confusing speeding with speed. When an authority say that 5% of accidents were attributable to speed, you really mean speeding. 5% involved people breaking the speed limit. ALL ACCIDENTS AND ROAD DEATHS SINCE THE AUTOMOBILE WAS INVENTED HAVE INVOLVED SPEED.
As for whether you think speed cameras should be introduced on a wide scale here, I can only think of the US. Having lived in Florida for a while, I distinctly remember that outside schools there was a temporary 20mph limit. Flashing lights came on to tell you it was active about an hour either side of let them loose time. EVERY SINGLE DRIVER THAT I EVER SAW PASSING THOSE SCHOOLS DID EXACTLY 20MPH. WHY? BECAUSE THERE WERE SPEED CAMERAS EVERYWHERE.
So many seem to think they should be allowed set their own speed limits. Answer yourself this question:
Extensive research has proven that the difference between 20 and 30 mph during a collision with a child can be the difference between minor injuries and death. There were some good ads on telly here recently highlighting this, so most people know it to be fact. Now, think of your local school and ask yourself what speed you normally do when you pass it? What speed do you think the average person does when they pass it? I would put my house on the fact that nobody voluntarily does 20 mph. Why? Because they can legally get away with doing the speed limit instead.
On the old N1 not far from blakes cross there is a small primary school. The main road has a 50 mph limit. (Used to be 60) Every single person I have seen passing there does 50 or 60 on that stretch. Hit a kid at that speed and it's instant death and probably dismemberment. The argument that we are all capable of determining the appropriate speed is utter rubbish. Those posting here may genuinely be capable and skillful enough to stay safe and drive at safe speeds all the time. But surely you all must agree that the general population is not. THAT IS WHY WE NEED SPEED LIMITS AND SPEED CAMERAS. TO STOP THE FEW STUPID PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO IGNORANT AND SELFISH TO STICK TO THE LIMITS OR DRIVE SAFELY.
And before you say it: what we really need is sensible speed limits - like 30kmh outside schools from 8am to 9:30am and from 2:30 to 4:30pm. And back roads with speed limits of 50 or 60kmh. That is the priority. Incidentally, increasing speed limits is entirely unnecessary. So many would prefer to see some dual carriageway increased 60 to 80kmh before they would want a 30kmh limit on their main street. Then, after all the lmits are adjusted, put speed cameras absolutely everywhere.
The argument that speed cameras have increased deaths in the UK is actually bollox. Your arguments are so ridiculously narrow minded that it's not funny. The number of road deaths may well have increased for the past few years. But you have taken no account whatsoever that the population has been growing immensely quickly for a long time and the number of vehicles on the road is increasing exponentially. What is really relevant - and I might add not reported - is the percentage of deaths when compared to the average number of individual road trips. I guarantee you that that number has decreased. Any fool can see that if 400 people were killed on our roads this year, 400 next year, 400 the year after that and after that too, while the number of cars on the road and kilometers of tarmac doubled, then the roads have actually become hugely safer statistically.
Saying speed cameras cause deaths is like saying: A person on my road had cancer. There are 7 black cars parked on my road. Therefore I conclude that black cars cause cancer. RIDICULOUS!
Speed is the main component of road safety over which we have immediate control. Better training and safer road design and all that may come with time but would be impossible to implement quickly. Reduced speed will reduce deaths.
Fire requires three elements to occur. Fuel, Oxygen and Heat. To prevent forest fires should we A) Cut down the forest.
Chemically attempt to remove all traces of Oxygen from the area or C) Try to highlight and stop people from providing a heat source by playing with matches, smoking, lighting campfires etc, etc. This whole speed vs training vs skill vs technology argument is the same idiotic attempt by so many to pretend they are the best drivers on the planet and simply need free reign to make the roads safer.
Speed is item C) above. It is the only sensible and far reaching campaign that can possibly get through to the majority of drivers in this country.0 -
-
-
I think most people with camera issues here, myself for example, would have no problem with this type of thing. In fact if you check my posts on the subject you will find a couple of points that I bring up again and again. The first of which is I do not think cameras should be hidden and the second is I despise speeding in a built up area. The reason people slowed down to 20 is because they *knew* cameras were there and that they would get caught if they were speeding.Ta me anseo wrote: »As for whether you think speed cameras should be introduced on a wide scale here, I can only think of the US. Having lived in Florida for a while, I distinctly remember that outside schools there was a temporary 20mph limit. Flashing lights came on to tell you it was active about an hour either side of let them loose time. EVERY SINGLE DRIVER THAT I EVER SAW PASSING THOSE SCHOOLS DID EXACTLY 20MPH. WHY? BECAUSE THERE WERE SPEED CAMERAS EVERYWHERE.
Some posters may think this but they would be in the minority I believe.Ta me anseo wrote: »So many seem to think they should be allowed set their own speed limits. Answer yourself this question:
Again, I think you are more or less preaching to the converted here. I doubt you will find many here arguing with you about the validity of speed limits in a built up area, particularly outside a school.Ta me anseo wrote: »Extensive research has proven that the difference between 20 and 30 mph during a collision with a child can be the difference between minor injuries and death. There were some good ads on telly here recently highlighting this, so most people know it to be fact. Now, think of your local school and ask yourself what speed you normally do when you pass it? What speed do you think the average person does when they pass it? I would put my house on the fact that nobody voluntarily does 20 mph. Why? Because they can legally get away with doing the speed limit instead.Ta me anseo wrote: »On the old N1 not far from blakes cross there is a small primary school. The main road has a 50 mph limit. (Used to be 60) Every single person I have seen passing there does 50 or 60 on that stretch. Hit a kid at that speed and it's instant death and probably dismemberment. The argument that we are all capable of determining the appropriate speed is utter rubbish. Those posting here may genuinely be capable and skillful enough to stay safe and drive at safe speeds all the time. But surely you all must agree that the general population is not. THAT IS WHY WE NEED SPEED LIMITS AND SPEED CAMERAS. TO STOP THE FEW STUPID PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO IGNORANT AND SELFISH TO STICK TO THE LIMITS OR DRIVE SAFELY.I agree with you. Most drivers are not capable of determining the appropriate speed for a particular stretch of road. I am sure if you stopped drivers many of them would probably not even have realised that there was a school there. To be honest, if you do not want traffic passing a school at 50 then don’t set the limit at 50. Seems quite simple to me.
I would not agree that increasing speed limits is unnecessary, I think in some cases they should increase. That said, if I were in charge, increasing limits would be down my list slightly. I would be more interested in decreasing inappropriate limits and generally trying to improve road safety. This would not be achieved by placing cameras absolutely everywhere, though I would use a lot of cameras.Ta me anseo wrote: »And before you say it: what we really need is sensible speed limits - like 30kmh outside schools from 8am to 9:30am and from 2:30 to 4:30pm. And back roads with speed limits of 50 or 60kmh. That is the priority. Incidentally, increasing speed limits is entirely unnecessary. So many would prefer to see some dual carriageway increased 60 to 80kmh before they would want a 30kmh limit on their main street. Then, after all the lmits are adjusted, put speed cameras absolutely everywhere.
Actually it is not a ridiculous as you might think. If you look at the statistics you will find that areas which have embraced the safety camera partnership model have, for the most part, seen an increase in deaths and injuries. There are a number of counties that ditched this model and went back to good old fashion policing, they have seen a decrease in the same. Have a look at www.safespeed.org , quite an interesting site.Ta me anseo wrote: »The argument that speed cameras have increased deaths in the UK is actually bollox. Your arguments are so ridiculously narrow minded that it's not funny. The number of road deaths may well have increased for the past few years. But you have taken no account whatsoever that the population has been growing immensely quickly for a long time and the number of vehicles on the road is increasing exponentially. What is really relevant - and I might add not reported - is the percentage of deaths when compared to the average number of individual road trips. I guarantee you that that number has decreased. Any fool can see that if 400 people were killed on our roads this year, 400 next year, 400 the year after that and after that too, while the number of cars on the road and kilometers of tarmac doubled, then the roads have actually become hugely safer statistically.
Saying speed cameras cause deaths is like saying: A person on my road had cancer. There are 7 black cars parked on my road. Therefore I conclude that black cars cause cancer. RIDICULOUS!
Here is a nice quote from the chief motorcycle observer from my IAM group, he is an ex-motorcycle cop with Thames Valley Police. He is commenting on a report about road tax evasion by motorcyclist, but his comments on cameras are, I think, very vadil:Rod wrote:First of all I am always sceptical of figures produced by Government, I have witnessed first hand how they are initiated, collected and compiled. Secondly maybe some motorcyclists are fed up with paying tax when the standard of roads are getting poorer and poorer (not that I condone this at all you understand). In the report it made reference that „the problem is that cameras have difficulty in recording motorcycles because the forward facing cameras cannot record the details[FONT="]‟[/FONT]. Perhaps one day they will catch onto the fact that cameras don[FONT="]‟[/FONT]t detect drunk/drugged or dangerous/reckless driver either.
It is also something that the government can lay squarely at the feet of the driver and wash then hands of any further action. It is a very convenient cop out for them. Blame speed, even when their own figures don’t support their claims, and do nothing else.Ta me anseo wrote: »Speed is the main component of road safety over which we have immediate control. Better training and safer road design and all that may come with time but would be impossible to implement quickly. Reduced speed will reduce deaths.
Not it isn’t. Proper policing of the roads will reduce the other things that are actually causing the bulk of death on the roads. Inappropriate speed, reckless driving within the posted limits, dangerous overtaking within the speed limits are all causes of deaths on the roads. In fact according to the RSA statistics account for more death that speeding. The problem is, cameras won’t detect it, only proper policing will. The problem with that is that policing costs money. Sticking a camera on the safest road in the country and fining people doing 130 on the way to the airport does nothing for road safety. All it does is raise a few quid and give the government some st1tty statistics to convince fcuking retards that they are serious about road safety.Ta me anseo wrote: »Fire requires three elements to occur. Fuel, Oxygen and Heat. To prevent forest fires should we A) Cut down the forest. Chemically attempt to remove all traces of Oxygen from the area or C) Try to highlight and stop people from providing a heat source by playing with matches, smoking, lighting campfires etc, etc. This whole speed vs training vs skill vs technology argument is the same idiotic attempt by so many to pretend they are the best drivers on the planet and simply need free reign to make the roads safer.
Speed is item C) above. It is the only sensible and far reaching campaign that can possibly get through to the majority of drivers in this country.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Breaking my own promise not to post again......People also don't realize that a stern warning from a cop can do just the same as points and a fine. Of course the points and fine look good for the Government stats, the quite word in through the drivers window won't be recorded but may actually make the driver think more about their actions on the roads.
It's hard to argue with that explanation I must say. Perhaps my problem is that I feel people are completely disregarding speed cameras as a tool to reduce road deaths. I admit I am not au fait with the situation in the UK but I still strongly believe that statistics and figures can be used in any way you like. Those who are anti-camera will always find statistics to prove their point if they look hard enough. So will people like me. Nonetheless, if policing is reduced and cameras are put in their place then I can understand how the situation could worsen and dangerous driving go undetected. All the same, in this country right now, we have absolutely no policing whatsoever.
Just one hour ago, on a long, straight stretch of road near my village, where the limit was recently reduced to 50kmh because it runs in front of a school, there was the usual line of tailgating cars doing 80kmh. In the middle of them, not 3 car lengths from the car in front was a Garda car.
I admit that obviously better policing is necessary and would yield better results than cameras ever could. But in Ireland, with the complete apathy that the Gardai show when it comes to road safety, would you not agree that a nationwide rollout of speed cameras would improve the situation we are currently in?
I am coming around to understand the general concensus here I think. I suppose I misunderstood the direction of the initial posts and I apologise if I seemed to be talking down to anyone.
However, as much as I can not stand Gaybo, I do not remember who preceeded him. Nor do I ever remember any other RSA official giving any worthwhile or noteworthy announcements, statements or interviews or bringing road safety to the forefront as Gaybo has done recently. Whether his views are correct or not, he has prompted discussions like this and has people talking about it in the pub. That can't be a bad thing. 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement