WANTED! People for speed camera debate on Questions and Answers

I.S.T.

The first woman who spoke, Ursela Kilkenny made a good point in that there is no evidence speed cameras are the answer. She was also trying to made the point that they have not helped in the UK in response to Gay Mitchell but was cut off by Bowman (According to www.safespeed.org.uk the cameras are actually responsible for making the roads more dangerous in the UK).

I thought Gay Mitchell's comment that 25 lives saved will pay for the speed cameras sumed up how politicians don't really value human life at all. It's a sad state of affairs when the Government are squabbling over paying for something that they say will stop one of the (alleged) main causes of deaths on our roads, i.e. speed.

The rest of the speakers have swallowed hook line and sinker the mantra forever repeated by the Government & Road Safety Authority that speed is the main cause of all the problems on our roads. However Mary White did make one good point in that they should be on the secondary roads where most of the accidents occur.

I.S.T.

I was reading through the Road Safety Strategy 2007 - 2012 report on the Road Safety Authority's web site the other night. I came accross the following statistic which I have heard repeated many times: "Excessive speed is a contributory factor in 1 in 3 fatal collisions". The source cited for this was the "Road Accident Facts, NRA 2000-2005 & Road Collision Facts, RSA 2006" reports. I decided to go through these reports to see where this statistic comes from. However I have been unable to find anything that states this in any of the 7 reports. The closest I could find was the table entitles "Two Vehicle Collisions: Contributory Action, where specified". For 2006, the number of accidents where "Exceeded Safe Speed" was the cause was 6.5%. A hell of a lot lower that the quoted 33%. This figure has been higher in some of the previous years though, so I took an average of the 7 years and it was 15%. I have attached an excel file with the stats from this table for all 7 years.

You can find the reports at the links below, can anyone else have a look to see if I have missed something? I have written an email to the RSA asking them to explain this figure.
NRA Reports: http://www.nra.ie/Publications/RoadSafety/#d.en.3469
RSA Report: http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/

javaboy

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I thought Gay Mitchell's comment that 25 lives saved will pay for the speed cameras sumed up how politicians don't really value human life at all. It's a sad state of affairs when the Government are squabbling over paying for something that they say will stop one of the (alleged) main causes of deaths on our roads, i.e. speed.

In fairness to Gay Mitchell, it seemed to me that he was trying to convince those worried about the cost that they wouldn't cost the country money rather than use the money as a reason to justify bringing them in.

Bowman always cuts people off before they get to their main point and then for some reason will give an audience member who is just repeating themselves about 10 minutes to talk. It always annoys me on Q&A. I thought it was poor that they gave over so little time to the 'debate' on the show. Was Mary White the only panellist in government on tonight? No Fianna Failers?

I.S.T.

javaboy wrote: »

In fairness to Gay Mitchell, it seemed to me that he was trying to convince those worried about the cost that they wouldn't cost the country money rather than use the money as a reason to justify bringing them in.

Yeah you're right, what I meant was it is sad that the very people (Government) who are trying to convince us that speed cameras will solve so many problems on our roads are actually penny pinching and putting a figure on saving lives.

Seth Brundle

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I thought Gay Mitchell's comment that 25 lives saved will pay for the speed cameras sumed up how politicians don't really value human life at all. It's a sad state of affairs when the Government are squabbling over paying for something that they say will stop one of the (alleged) main causes of deaths on our roads, i.e. speed.

I think he was trying to pint out that each fatality costs the state about €2million. Using the figure of €50million to operate this system, then by saving 25 lives, the system will have proved to be cost effective. However, he was misinformed by whoever prepared his response. The cost will be 25million and not 50million.
Anyhow, to address your point, it is a bit callous of a public representative but standard practice to view a human life in terms of its monetary value.

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I was reading through the Road Safety Strategy 2007 - 2012 report on the Road Safety Authority's web site the other night. I came accross the following statistic which I have heard repeated many times: "Excessive speed is a contributory factor in 1 in 3 fatal collisions". The source cited for this was the "Road Accident Facts, NRA 2000-2005 & Road Collision Facts, RSA 2006" reports. I decided to go through these reports to see where this statistic comes from. However I have been unable to find anything that states this in any of the 7 reports. The closest I could find was the table entitles "Two Vehicle Collisions: Contributory Action, where specified". For 2006, the number of accidents where "Exceeded Safe Speed" was the cause was 6.5%. A hell of a lot lower that the quoted 33%. This figure has been higher in some of the previous years though, so I took an average of the 7 years and it was 15%. I have attached an excel file with the stats from this table for all 7 years.

You can find the reports at the links below, can anyone else have a look to see if I have missed something? I have written an email to the RSA asking them to explain this figure.
NRA Reports: http://www.nra.ie/Publications/RoadSafety/#d.en.3469
RSA Report: http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/

Up until the last couple of years, proper accident investigation did not occur. People who were killed when fleutered or high or asleep or whatever, tended to be marked down as speeding. No proper investigation of the scene like what you have nowadays was in place.
How could you have stats under those conditions?

Our man in Havana

No proper investigation of the scene like what you have nowadays was in place.
How could you have stats under those conditions?

The govt/RSA should be tackled on the use of clearly false stats to get their way on the issue of speed cameras.

ednwireland

Niall1234 wrote: »

Indeed he said France. It has to be said however, that France has been incredibly pro-active in attempts to reduce road deaths.

I would imagine that the 31% fall in road fatalities had more to do with just the roll out of speed cameras.

i was in france about six years ago and on a tour round the curvoisier (cognac ) museum the girl said something like you can drive after 3 or 4 brandy's - in a general conversation about the good stuff vsop +. i beleive since then has been a lot of enforcement on drink driving and speeding. and i would guess that changing the drink driving attitude has a lot more effect.

Seth Brundle

Bond-007 wrote: »

The govt/RSA should be tackled on the use of clearly false stats to get their way on the issue of speed cameras.

I'm quite sure that I correct. However, it would be great if GTC, blindjustice or someone else who may verify this before we start protesting to the Dáil.

Steve

It's gone up to 40% now.

From Irish times site:

Road Safety Authority chief executive Noel Brett said people must take responsibility for their behaviour on the roads and .....

He pointed out that 13 people had been killed in road crashes since Thursday morning. "That's an appalling figure," he said....

He said excessive and inappropriate speed was still the single biggest factor contributing to road deaths. More than 40 per cent of deaths were caused by speeding.

How can they quote things like this when they contradict their own published statistics

I.S.T.

kbannon wrote: »

I think he was trying to pint out that each fatality costs the state about €2million. Using the figure of €50million to operate this system, then by saving 25 lives, the system will have proved to be cost effective. However, he was misinformed by whoever prepared his response. The cost will be 25million and not 50million.
Anyhow, to address your point, it is a bit callous of a public representative but standard practice to view a human life in terms of its monetary value.
Up until the last couple of years, proper accident investigation did not occur. People who were killed when fleutered or high or asleep or whatever, tended to be marked down as speeding. No proper investigation of the scene like what you have nowadays was in place.
How could you have stats under those conditions?

If the people who want speed cameras really really believe they are going to save so many lives, why are they squabbling over costs? Call me a cynic, but I think they themselves are not convienced that so many lives will really be saved by the cameras.

ednwireland wrote: »

i was in france about six years ago and on a tour round the curvoisier (cognac ) museum the girl said something like you can drive after 3 or 4 brandy's - in a general conversation about the good stuff vsop +. i beleive since then has been a lot of enforcement on drink driving and speeding. and i would guess that changing the drink driving attitude has a lot more effect.

Yes, France has really cracked down on drink driving in recent years which had almost been seen as acceptable.

stevec wrote: »

It's gone up to 40% now.

From Irish times site:


How can they quote things like this when they contradict their own published statistics

This is a figure that needs to be questioned. I will ask the RSA about this one also.

javaboy

javaboy wrote: »

Was Mary White the only panellist in government on tonight? No Fianna Failers?

I think they are setting up the Greens as the bad guys for everything!

kbannon wrote: »

I'm quite sure that I correct. However, it would be great if GTC, blindjustice or someone else who may verify this before we start protesting to the Dáil.

I dont know how they recorded things before the PULSE system but it may be that they are just throwing out any old figures to suit themselves which happens all the time if you read any financial reports!

stevec wrote: »

It's gone up to 40% now.

From Irish times site:


How can they quote things like this when they contradict their own published statistics

Yep - certainly looks like they are bending figures - convenient isnt it!
The govt budget is in trouble this year as unemployment has risen slightly above projected figues and govt stamp duty income has plummeted - they Govt need the money and I dont think any amount of protesting will prevent these speed cameras at this stage!!

Not that I see anyone protesting!!!!

ballooba

€50 Million would put an extra 500 Traffic Corp Gardai on the road. That's a 50% increase in their number.

I found from my own experience that a good talk from a Traffic Corp Garda is much more effective than a letter in the post.

If one in 20 of those Garda has a chat with a lethal driver that changes their behaviour then the measure will be cost effective.

I can't understand this use of resources.

When it comes down to it speed cameras are draconian and backward!
Dealing with road deaths involves a smarter approach not this snake oil quick fix solution that wont really work and is just a revenue generating exercise!
Dealing with road deaths involves an overhaul of
Driver training
Road signage
The way road works are carried out
Strict motorway policy - copied from the German autobahn system - the real way forward!
and much much more..

I fear this all involves far too much work for our politicians! Maybe we should pay them more and they will work harder!! oh yeah! I forgot they already got a raise this year

Our man in Havana

The typical Johnny and Mary FF voters down in the sticks will see it as the govt doing something about all the bad bad people in the big smoke who driver over 50 km/h. It is these sorts of people that keep FF and co in power. No amount of protesting will ever stop them imho.

Cionád

Deleted User wrote: »

Dealing with road deaths involves an overhaul of
Driver training
Road signage
The way road works are carried out
Strict motorway policy - copied from the German autobahn system - the real way forward!
and much much more..

I agree, and continuous training with a re-test every 10 years or so.

I find it amazing how people just drive from A to B and take no notice of their mirrors, indicating, lights, innapropriate speed (the 70kph crew who go 70 kph on 100kph limit roads AND 50kph zones!!), drink driving, Right lane hogging, using bus lanes, tailgating, breaking red lights, driving with fogs when not foggy, and no fogs when foggy!, not taking care of their car, speeding in housing estates/villages, road positioning for turns/roundabouts, make-up/mobiles/reading while driving, no tax/insurance, the list goes on and on its crazy!!

Steve

Bond-007 wrote: »

The typical Johnny and Mary FF voters down in the sticks will see it as the govt doing something about all the bad bad people in the big smoke who driver over 50 km/h. It is these sorts of people that keep FF and co in power. No amount of protesting will ever stop them imho.

They'll have to set the cameras to 18kph to catch anyone in Dublin these days:D

E92

There were more deaths on our roads in times gone by, when we had very few cars on our roads, yet people seem to think that the current fatality rate is completely shocking altogether.

I'd love to know how 40% of all fatalities are caused by "speeding". Do the Guards employ Physicists and Applied Mathematicians to work out what speed every car was travelling at that is involved in an accident(I seriously doubt it, and btw if Applied Mathematicians and Physicists DO say that 40% of all accidents involved a car travelling above the speed limit, then you can't argue with that), because if they don't then as far as I'm concerned they made up the figure(especially as it seems to vary depending on which member of the RSA/Government/Political Party is talking) for a completely unjustifiable reason.

Steve

Cionád wrote: »

I agree, and continuous training with a re-test every 10 years or so.

+1
If they can sucessfully put a system in place where we have to get our cars tested every 2 years, how come the driver testing system is failing so miserably.

I.S.T.

E92 wrote: »

There were more deaths on our roads in times gone by, when we had very few cars on our roads, yet people seem to think that the current fatality rate is completely shocking altogether.

I'd love to know how 40% of all fatalities are caused by "speeding". Do the Guards employ Physicists and Applied Mathematicians to work out what speed every car was travelling at that is involved in an accident(I seriously doubt it, and btw if Applied Mathematicians and Physicists DO say that 40% of all accidents involved a car travelling above the speed limit, then you can't argue with that), because if they don't then as far as I'm concerned they made up the figure(especially as it seems to vary depending on which member of the RSA/Government/Political Party is talking) for a completely unjustifiable reason.

That is why we need to look into this and ask questions. Once we have established the statistics quoted are not accurate then we go to the media with it. The media don't look into the majority of statistics in press releases so they are just reprinting what the RSA tell them. If we can prove these figures are not accurate then the media will start questioning the RSA.

E92

E92 wrote: »

say that 40% of all accidents involved a car travelling above the speed limit, then you can't argue with that)

The figures arent reliable as they are throwing out different numbers all the time!

But you CAN argue with what Ive quoted from your post!
If a drunk driver plows into a wall at 100mph was it because he was blind drunk or because he was speeding?
Would he have been speeding if he wasnt drunk? Maybe, maybe not
Would be have lost control. Maybe, maybe not
The point can be argued!
A contributory factor I would say but not the primary cause in my opinion!
The same can be said for dangerous over taking and other fatal accidents
was it because he was doing 80kmph in a 50kmph zone or was it because he was dangerously overtaking - not checking for on coming cars!
Dont know how many times I have witnessed people in the opposite lane being forced into the hard shoulder by drivers dangerously overtaking AND speeding...!

E92

A Freedom of Information request about how Guards record statistics in accidents could answer a lot of questions. Another request asking do they use people who actually know what they're talking about(i.e. Physicists or Applied Mathematicians or other suitably qualified people) to determine what speed vehicles were travelling at(these people can work these things out, the formulas are not that hard) would be very revealing too.

Padraig Mor

E92 wrote: »

I'd love to know how 40% of all fatalities are caused by "speeding"..

Can't say without looking at the figures but I'd bet that what the data shows is that excessive speed (NB not the same as exceeding the speed limit) is a contributory factor in 40% of road deaths. In most cases this means that someone crashed for a reason unrelated to speed but their speed made the accident more serious. This then gets truncated to "speeding causes 40% of road deaths" - which is a different thing altogether.

E92

Deleted User wrote: »

The figures arent reliable as they are throwing out different numbers all the time!

But you CAN argue with what Ive quoted from your post!
If a drunk driver plows into a wall at 100mph was it because he was blind drunk or because he was speeding?
Would he have been speeding if he wasnt drunk? Maybe, maybe not
Would be have lost control. Maybe, maybe not
The point can be argued!
A contributory factor I would say but not the primary cause in my opinion!
The same can be said for dangerous over taking and other fatal accidents
was it because he was doing 80kmph in a 50kmph zone or was it because he was dangerously overtaking - not checking for on coming cars!
Dont know how many times I have witnessed people in the opposite lane being forced into the hard shoulder by drivers dangerously overtaking AND speeding...!

I see what you are saying, and I'm not dismissing it, but you can't "know" that someone was travelling at any accurate given speed short of using the Mathematical formulae to work it out(the Maths behind it could also be used to tell when the car braked and how fast it took the car to slow down before the car hit the wall).

You could use Mathematical Software like Mathematica or Maple, all it involves is collecting the data, and telling the computer programme what the data is and it will tell you in a matter of split seconds what happened.

javaboy

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Can't say without looking at the figures but I'd bet that what the data shows is that excessive speed (NB not the same as exceeding the speed limit) is a contributory factor in 40% of road deaths. In most cases this means that someone crashed for a reason unrelated to speed but their speed made the accident more serious. This then gets truncated to "speeding causes 40% of road deaths" - which is a different thing altogether.

I get what you're saying and I'd go as far as saying that almost no accidents are caused by one single factor. I would say that it's untrue that 40% of road deaths are caused by speeding but it might be the case that if they were going at/below the limit prior to the accident, then there might be a lot less fatal accidents.

Just because speeding isn't the be all and end all, does not mean that nothing should be done about it if it is a contributory factor.

Steve

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Can't say without looking at the figures but I'd bet that what the data shows is that excessive speed (NB not the same as exceeding the speed limit) is a contributory factor in 40% of road deaths. In most cases this means that someone crashed for a reason unrelated to speed but their speed made the accident more serious. This then gets truncated to "speeding causes 40% of road deaths" - which is a different thing altogether.

No offence Padraig but if you actually read the figures quoted by the RSA and posted earlier in this thread by IST you wouldn't have posted that.

E92

I'm just after looking at Q&A. I notice that most speakers give a very conditional yes to speed cameras. They were saying yes, as long as they're not on Dual Carriageways and Motorways and are on bad back roads, and don't get people for going only 1 or 2 km/h over the limit.

That dame Mona O'Moore, (you'd think a Professor would say something intelligent) said that she wanted ramps and stuff, so that we'd slow down and therefore use less fuel and pollute less CO2. Well I've news for her, travelling at 5 mph produces no less than twice as much CO2 as travelling at 130 km/h, and ramps etc. are noted for using more fuel as you are constantly changing your speed too(it's why the tree huggers actually want less ramps on the roads in the UK believe it or not).

And I also noticed how so many people waited to see what the rest were doing before showing their cards too. Hardly representative of what people think really.

In fairness to the girl from UCC, she knew what she was talking about, and didn't need hearsay either(unlike some of the pro speed camera argument), she was busy throwing out a few facts which are 100% true(until Bowman cut her off) but also 100% inconvenient for the do gooders in society too.

Padraig Mor

stevec wrote: »

No offence Padraig but if you actually read the figures quoted by the RSA and posted earlier in this thread by IST you wouldn't have posted that.

No offence, but I don't see the contradiction (we're both basically saying the same thing) and I was just taking the 40% statistic on face value as reported without detailed examination. A quick look at IST's links indicates that he is unfortunately quoting the wrong stats (he uses data for all collisions rather than just fatal collisions). The correct 2006 figure for 2 vehicle fatal collisions is that 12% were attributed to exceeding a "safe speed" (what that is, is never defined). He also ignores single vehicle collisions which are a huge part of the problem, and which have a higher "speeding" contributory factor (26%). Now, how that adds up to 40% defeats me. Again, my main point (which you seem to have missed) stands: for the most part "speed" exasperates crashes but does not cause them.

javaboy

E92 wrote: »

I'm just after looking at Q&A. I notice that most speakers give a very conditional yes to speed cameras. They were saying yes, as long as they're not on Dual Carriageways and Motorways and are on bad back roads, and don't get people for going only 1 or 2 km/h over the limit.

The eco mentalist(not Mary White, the other Dame) said that she wanted ramps and stuff, so that we'd slow down and therefore use less fuel and pollute less CO2. Well I've news for her, travelling at 5 mph produces no less than twice as much CO2 as travelling at 130 km/h, and ramps etc. are noted for using more fuel as you are constantly changing your speed too(it's why the tree huggers actually want less ramps on the roads in the UK believe it or not).

Eh wasn't she saying that she wanted cameras so the ramps can be removed so we don't have to speed up, slow down, speed up, slow down ad nauseam which wastes fuel? I don't think anyone was advocating ramps IIRC.


Added: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0303/qanda_av.html?2344678,null,230 - watch from 1:30 she is against speed ramps.

Mena

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I was reading through the Road Safety Strategy 2007 - 2012 report on the Road Safety Authority's web site the other night. I came accross the following statistic which I have heard repeated many times: "Excessive speed is a contributory factor in 1 in 3 fatal collisions". The source cited for this was the "Road Accident Facts, NRA 2000-2005 & Road Collision Facts, RSA 2006" reports. I decided to go through these reports to see where this statistic comes from. However I have been unable to find anything that states this in any of the 7 reports. The closest I could find was the table entitles "Two Vehicle Collisions: Contributory Action, where specified". For 2006, the number of accidents where "Exceeded Safe Speed" was the cause was 6.5%. A hell of a lot lower that the quoted 33%. This figure has been higher in some of the previous years though, so I took an average of the 7 years and it was 15%. I have attached an excel file with the stats from this table for all 7 years.

You can find the reports at the links below, can anyone else have a look to see if I have missed something? I have written an email to the RSA asking them to explain this figure.
NRA Reports: http://www.nra.ie/Publications/RoadSafety/#d.en.3469
RSA Report: http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/

Regarding the bolded bits above, here's where I see the problem.

A speed camera will "do" you for going say 110KPH in a 100KPH zone. That's all well and good. What about someone doing 100KPH in a 100KPH zone when there is less than 2m visibility?

This is excessive or inappropriate/unsafe speed, and no camera's I know of are going to be able to do a damn thing about that.

The "debate" last night was a joke :mad:

ednwireland

totally agree mena i heard garda and rsa representatives always talking about most accidents caused by inappropriate speed. just say i come into an unsigned sharp bend on an 80 kmh road and crash, i would guess that is classed as inappropriate speed for the conditions - not my fault but that's what it would be classed as. seems to me to be a catch all phrase that allows the authority's to not do anything as usual