Introduction of Speed Cameras

Niall1234

Have to agree with E92.

Of all the deaths on the weekend, the two he's mentioned were not caused by speeding. Driving on the wrong side of the road and from what I hear, the car that slipped into the water was being pulled out of the mud and for what ever reason, slipped into the water.

Of the other fatalities, none as yet have been proven to be caused by speeding.


Answer me this sandwich. The fatality and crash rate on unlimited sections of Autobahn is exactly the same as those on speed limited sections. Therefore, how will speed cameras on motorways save lives ?


The whole point of the rules of the road is to create a safe driving environment. Speed limits are the be all and end all. Common sense to my mind is much more applicable.. If I see a narrow road, I don't go fast. If I see a HQDC that was designed for speeds up to 160 kph then I personally believe that 130 kph isn't dangerous. And the stats back me up.

On safety cameras. Instead of speed cameras, I'd much rather see cameras doing people for running red lights. The last year or so, I've seen some awful carry on at red lights. The worst was last week, with a car in front of me running red lights which had been solid for ages. I simply couldn't believe it.

Cyrus

chris85 wrote: »

Sandwich, you are a knieve, thinking the implementation of speed cameras will reduce fatalitys.

A major well publicised report last year (cant find it now but most people know about it) showed that motorways are the safest roads with a small number of deaths on the stretchs looked at (m1 particularly which has a lot of speeders) and showed that only a handful of deaths in the last 20 years compared to national roads.
Yet we all know the cameras will be placed on motorways or just after a motorway finishes.

Cameras should be placed on blackspots and warning should be given to drivers of the camera, this way they will slow down and thus there will be a definite reduction in speed at the camera. May not create revenue but we are trying to save lives so revenue shoud not come into it if the goverment is committed.

Sandwich do you drive?

again you are making unsubstantiated assumptions,

im not saying this will be the case but in all the documentation so far 900 black spots have been identified and these are where the cameras will be deployed, average speed surveys will then be used to measure the success or lack thereof of the cameras

oh and dont get me wrong, i like to drive fast and i think a lot of the decent dual carriageways we have should have the limit increased to 120,

but it seems an awful lot of opposition to the cameras is based on speculation or misinformation

Niall1234

Cyrus wrote: »

again you are making unsubstantiated assumptions,

im not saying this will be the case but in all the documentation so far 900 black spots have been identified and these are where the cameras will be deployed, average speed surveys will then be used to measure the success or lack thereof of the cameras

It'd be nice to think that they will go where they are needed, on black spots.

However, motorways generally don't have blackspots.

Cyrus

no, they dont,

and if the program is followed as it has been set out thus far there wont be cameras there

Cyrus

this is some info (oldish i think) on one of the most successful mobile speed camera models, the state of victoria in aus

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:uamtjmOpDjEJ:www.popcenter.org/Library/CrimePrevention/Volume%252001/10bourne.pdf+speed+camera+reduces+road+trauma&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=ie

this is more recent

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc267.pdf

Niall1234

Cyrus wrote: »

no, they dont,

and if the program is followed as it has been set out thus far there wont be cameras there

I sincerely hope you are true.

But this government .......

Cyrus

i agree,

my point is that the gardai are trying to build a program like the vic one, if they do it will be better for everyone, if revenue becomes the overriding factor things will deteriorate

but lets hope for the best for now

chris85

Cyrus wrote: »

again you are making unsubstantiated assumptions,

im not saying this will be the case but in all the documentation so far 900 black spots have been identified and these are where the cameras will be deployed, average speed surveys will then be used to measure the success or lack thereof of the cameras

oh and dont get me wrong, i like to drive fast and i think a lot of the decent dual carriageways we have should have the limit increased to 120,

but it seems an awful lot of opposition to the cameras is based on speculation or misinformation

There are many reports on the safety of motorwayts being better than normal roads. I am not going looking for them but a quick google search will show the NRA and the goverment confirming that they are safer. Dont have time to read through reports to find the exact page.

Motorways remove the hazard of head on colisions which is a serious effect on fatalities.

I think people are sick of the goverment placing cameras in locations that are obviously there to generate revenue.

E92

I have to agree with Niall1234.

I've no problem with cameras that catch people who offend traffic light rules, or cameras that catch people for going into yellow boxes when they shouldn't.

In 2003, the German fatality rate on Autobahns was just under half that on our Motorways(source).

And we all know that well over half(it was more than that back then) of German Autobahns still don't have speed limits. And as anyone who has ever gone on an Autobahn without as limit will tell you, plenty of drivers don't exactly hang about on those Autobahns with no speed limit either. Now some will stay at the recommended speed of 130 km/h. But plenty will be travelling between 150 and 180 km/h.

A lot of people mistakenly think that on Autobahns which have no speed limit, that all the Germans drive with the accelerator all the way to the floor and try to get the car to it's top speed. This is simply untrue. Most will get up to a speed that they feel comfortable at travelling(I know several Germans, and they all love their no speed limits, but they say that they don't like going any faster than say 150, so that's all they go at even though they know they can go faster, I stayed with a German family for 3 weeks in summer 06, and when I was driven they said they didn't like going faster than 180, so they never went faster than 180 even when they could), only a small number of people go as fast as their cars can travel.

I mean the link I provided you with shows that while certainly Germany's roads are not the safest, countries with much lower speed limits(like Japan which has a limit on Motorways of only 100 km/h and yet manages to have more fatalities on them then on Germany's roads even though you can go as fast as you want on more than half of them, and between 20 and 40 km/h faster on most of the rest of them) don't necessarily do better either.

The stats for the UKs Motorways make for very good reading, because we had identical speed limits to them on Motorways at the time, yet our ones were 3.7 times more dangerous(and as anyone who has travelled in Britain will tell you, absolutely nobody travels at the 70 mph limit either, many do in excess of 80 mph too, and some even do 90), all the proof you need that lower speeds doesn't Automatically mean less fatalities.

And if I know there is a speed camera coming up, then I'll make certain sure I'll slow down(I'm not helping to pay for these unnecessary nannies), but then I start looking at the speedo all the time instead of watching the road, now that can't be good either can it(and this is why I think if we get obsessed with speed, all everyone will do is watch the speedo instead of being prepared for every eventuality that might happen)?

I never see speed checks on bad country roads, it's always Motorways and Dual Carriageways(the safest roads in the country) that get them, and I don't for a second believe that the private speed cameras will be on anything other than these(well the vast majority of them anyway), and even if they're not, if speed cameras become acceptable to the general public, then there will be more, and more, and more of them rolled out in the future.

Sandwich

chris85 wrote: »

There are many reports on the safety of motorwayts being better than normal roads. I am not going looking for them but a quick google search will show the NRA and the goverment confirming that they are safer. Dont have time to read through reports to find the exact page.

Motorways remove the hazard of head on colisions which is a serious effect on fatalities.

I think people are sick of the goverment placing cameras in locations that are obviously there to generate revenue.

Whats are the points here?

1) Motorways are safer than other roads so there should be no speed cameras on them?
Yes, motorways are safe(r). It does not follow that they should not therefore be made yet more safe.

2) The government is implementing speed cameras as a revenue raising exercise therefore it is wrong to do so?
Where does this bad logic come from? The question is will speed cameras make the road safer? If so then they are a good thing. If not then they are either a waste of money or another tax, and both are red herrings in the safety question. The NRSA has been pushing for more cameras for years. If anyone thinks this is due to a desire to increase govt revenue then they are a conspiracy theory short of the X Files.

Niall1234

Poor lane discipline and poor awareness are the dangers on motorways, not speeding.

chris85

Sandwich wrote: »

Whats are the points here?

1) Motorways are safer than other roads so there should be no speed cameras on them?
Yes, motorways are safe(r). It does not follow that they should not therefore be made yet more safe.

2) The government is implementing speed cameras as a revenue raising exercise therefore it is wrong to do so?
Where does this bad logic come from? The question is will speed cameras make the road safer? If so then they are a good thing. If not then they are either a waste of money or another tax, and both are red herrings in the safety question. The NRSA has been pushing for more cameras for years. If anyone thinks this is due to a desire to increase govt revenue then they are a conspiracy theory short of the X Files.

You failed to answer whether you drive?

Motorways are safe and very little problems on them, lets leave it at that. We are not interested in safe roads we need to improve safety on the black spots.

So far they have been a cash cow for the goverment based on the generally safe locations they are placed in. The goverment has limited money for the implementation of cameras, if they want safe roads they can put the cameras on hazardous locations (I am all in favour for this) but if they want more revenue (which the irish govt usually go for) then they will place them in locations in which people will be caught speeding but at a location where there was previously little trouble.

orbital83

Niall1234 wrote: »

Of all the deaths on the weekend, the two he's mentioned were not caused by speeding. Driving on the wrong side of the road and from what I hear, the car that slipped into the water was being pulled out of the mud and for what ever reason, slipped into the water.

Of the other fatalities, none as yet have been proven to be caused by speeding.

Just wait for tomorrow night on Prime Time - by the time it ends, you'll be convinced all of these people would be alive today if the government had got their finger out and installed the cameras earlier.

Yes, motorways are safe(r). It does not follow that they should not therefore be made yet more safe.

Indeed. If we cut the speed limits to 100km/h, that would be safer. Hell, let's make it 50km/h on all roads. Nah, 20 would be safer. Hey, while we're at it, let's ban cars altogether.

Certain sections of society cannot grasp the trade-off between what they perceive as "road safety" and other factors. Driving is an innately dangerous activity. That risk can be reduced through a combination of driver education, road improvements, technology, and yes, sensible speed limits.

I fear the planned camera rollout will do little to achieve these aims. I could l drive down a twisted country back road where two cars can't pass each other on a wet night at 80km/h, without fear of reprimand. I could legally do 100 around those hairpin bends on the N63 between Roscommon and Galway. I can legally drive through a housing estate full of kids playing at 50km/h.

Are we going to see a nationwide review of speed limits across this country to coincide with the speed cameras, with limits being raised or lowered in accordance with the quality of each section? Will revenue earned be pumped into improving substandard roads that are often a death trap in themselves? If so, these speed cameras could, dare I say it, be a positive thing.

I live in hope. But in a years' time, when we have the cameras and people are still dying, the Gaybo lobby will still be there, probably screaming for limits to be reduced this time.
The UK took years to learn their lesson, and we'll have to go through the same process.

Sandwich

chris85 wrote: »

You failed to answer whether you drive?

Apologies. Didnt see it.

I do indeed. About 20000km a year in a 180hp machine that supposedly can do up to 225km/h (but Ive never checked).

D_murph

Sandwich wrote: »

Apologies. Didnt see it.

I do indeed. About 20000km a year in a 180hp machine that supposedly can do up to 225km/h (but Ive never checked).

i suggest that you try. go out now and loosen your wheel nuts first and do it with no headlights on down a short pier :D

Sandwich

John J wrote: »

Indeed. If we cut the speed limits to 100km/h, that would be safer. Hell, let's make it 50km/h on all roads. Nah, 20 would be safer. Hey, while we're at it, let's ban cars altogether.

No need to take it to the absurb. My point was that we have a standard limit to avoid people making their own judgements(which may be right or wrong but we cannot be sure that everyone will make the correct decision) on what is a safe upper speed limit. Lets enforce that and see where it gets us from todays laisez-faire attitude.

Sandwich

D_murph wrote: »

i suggest that you try. go out now and loosen your wheel nuts first and do it with no headlights on down a short pier :D

"And finally, a tragic accident took place this evening in Dun Laoire harbour. A man in his 20s was apparantly checking the maximum speed of his car, and while it safely reached 225kph over the water, even with loosened wheel nuts, heading out of the harbour towards Wales it crashed into the ferry entering the port. Early reports indicate that his failure to turn on his headlights is the cause of the accident. Gardai are searching for a man known only as D_murph for further information".

D_murph

Sandwich wrote: »

"And finally, a tragic accident took place this evening in Dun Laoire harbour. A man in his 20s was apparantly checking the maximum speed of his car, and while it safely reached 225kph over the water, even with loosened wheel nuts, heading out of the harbour towards Wales it crashed into the ferry entering the port. Early reports indicate that his failure to turn on his headlights is the cause of the accident. Gardai are searching for a man known only as D_murph for further information".

i can live with that tragic? nope

eringobragh

Sandwich wrote: »

"And finally, a tragic accident took place this evening in Dun Laoire harbour. A man in his 20 s was apparantly checking the maximum speed of his car, and while it safely reached 225kph over the water, even with loosened wheel nuts, heading out of the harbour towards Wales it crashed into the ferry entering the port. Early reports indicate that his failure to turn on his headlights is the cause of the accident. Gardai are searching for a man known only as D_murph for further information".

Don't you mean..No offence...A man in his 80's!! cause you sound like an old codger, do something productive and give out to the young lads playing football outside your house

astraboy

Sandwich wrote: »

we have a standard limit to avoid people making their own judgements

Exactly my problem. We need to make judgements every time we sit in a car and drive. Educating drivers is the key, not beating them over the head with often stupid speed limits and claims that anyone doing 5kph over the limit on a safe motorway is a child killer and and evil entity.:rolleyes: If you really reckon that all of these 600 cameras are going in blackspots, you are deluded. I would'nt trust this government to run a swimming pool, they predict a 70M profit on the cameras so they are obviously going to be on well travelled, yet safe roads with too low a limit. I'd like to be proven wrong, really, but we can probably predict that these cameras are going to go on dualers and motorways, not where they will actually make a difference to road safety. Catching someone on the motorway will only create more anamosity toward the program. Watch as we see more cameras on our roads, and less guards on our streets where they are needed.

Steve

Sandwich wrote: »

"And finally, a tragic accident took place this evening in Dun Laoire harbour. A man in his 20s was apparantly checking the maximum speed of his car, and while it safely reached 225kph over the water, even with loosened wheel nuts, heading out of the harbour towards Wales it crashed into the ferry entering the port. Early reports indicate that his failure to turn on his headlights is the cause of the accident. Gardai are searching for a man known only as D_murph for further information".

Just to inform you that the speed limit in the harbour is 4kts (=8kph), thankfully there are no plans to introduce speed cameras.

BnA

I am simply stunned at the level of stupidity and immaturity running through this thread.

I mean, some brain surgeon even tried to suggest that speed cameras will even make the roads more dangerous...!!!!!

Some of the arguments against them are astoundingly idiotic.

If you are arguing against the introduction of Speed Cameras. You are saying...
"I break the speed limit and I would like to continue to do so un-opposed "
You cannot possibly have any other reason to oppose them.

It would be like the Mountjoy Union of Prisioners and general Scummers complaining against the introduction of an armed police force.

Let me spell in out in plain and simple English.

If you do not break the law, it will not matter a snot to you.

D_murph

:rolleyes: another one. sandwich must be recruiting his buddies from the knitting club :rolleyes:

Niall1234

BnA wrote: »

I am simply stunned at the level of stupidity and immaturity running through this thread.

I mean, some brain surgeon even tried to suggest that speed cameras will even make the roads more dangerous...!!!!!

Some of the arguments against them are astoundingly idiotic.

If you are arguing against the introduction of Speed Cameras. You are saying...
"I break the speed limit and I would like to continue to do so un-opposed "
You cannot possibly have any other reason to oppose them.

It would be like the Mountjoy Union of Prisioners and general Scummers complaining against the introduction of an armed police force.

Let me spell in out in plain and simple English.

If you do not break the law, it will not matter a snot to you.

You just don't get it do you. They are a waste of money which has been found in other countries not to save lives.

If you want to save lives, spend the money on increased numbers of Gardai in the traffic corps and better education.

The ultimate objective is to save lives. Their objective seems to be to stop speeding on motorways which will obviously, not save many lives at all.

Steve

BnA wrote: »

Some of the arguments against them are astoundingly idiotic.

Could you please elaborate on that and explain why generating revenue is more important than saving lives?

TheNog

Niall1234 wrote: »

You just don't get it do you. They are a waste of money which has been found in other countries not to save lives.

If you want to save lives, spend the money on increased numbers of Gardai in the traffic corps and better education.

The ultimate objective is to save lives. Their objective seems to be to stop speeding on motorways which will obviously, not save many lives at all.

I reckon you shot yourself in the foot here. I believe it is true that the government will make €70m each year from the speed cameras so maybe that money could used for more gardai and better education.

We would hope anyway :cool:

Steve

TheNog wrote: »

I reckon you shot yourself in the foot here. I believe it is true that the government will make €70m each year from the speed cameras so maybe that money could used for more gardai and better education.

We would hope anyway :cool:

I assume you mean the the same as that road tax, fuel tax, and VRT is currently being put back into infrastructure, safety and driver education?
Annual VRT alone is €1.3bn and not a cent goes back into making roads safer.

E92

The Government expects to get €70 million, but the damm things cost €50 million a year, so that leaves a profit of €20 million to be made, which in terms of Government spending is so small it makes no difference.

They are going to cost the state money, no question about that, because with an expected income of €70 million per annum, with I *think* 2 million drivers on the roads, means that every motorist will be paying on average €35 for speeding offences every year. I think I'm right in saying that each speeding offence is an €80 fine. That means they expect to catch roughly 44% of us for speeding every year. Do they seriously expect that 44% of us will speed or something?(I know I've no intention of giving the Government money to help fund something I don't want, so I certainly will be driving at the speed limit in areas I know that Big Brother is watching me)

chris85

TheNog wrote: »

I reckon you shot yourself in the foot here. I believe it is true that the government will make €70m each year from the speed cameras so maybe that money could used for more gardai and better education.

We would hope anyway :cool:

it will generate this much if in a place that is just used to catch drivers and not to make the roads safer. For this reason I oppose to these cameras unless they are placed in appropriate locations.

Everyone here is in favour of road safety and placing a speed camera on a location just to catch people going a few km over the limit in a relatively safe stretch is not going to improve safety.

Seth Brundle

E92 wrote: »

The Government expects to get €70 million, but the damm things cost €50 million a year, so that leaves a profit of €20 million to be made, which in terms of Government spending is so small it makes no difference.

That was the figure used at the press release to say that they were not going ahead with them.
The figure used shortly afterwards when the Dept. of Justice did a U-turn was that the annual cost was only €25million, leaving a net profit of about €45m.

But its not about the money, is it?