WANTED! People for speed camera debate on Questions and Answers

D_murph

Sandwich wrote: »

Well done IrishSteepdTraps. Interesting data.

Looks like reducing speeding is the most effective way to tackle road safety.

only you could get come to that conclusion after "reading" the data provided but then again what more can you get from a one track mind anyway :rolleyes:?

@ astraboy and all others too..

ignore this BS. nobody is as deluded as this surely so its getting obvious to me that this poster is a troll and only out to get a rise out of people who see the truth.

hopefully anyway because hed have to be a very sad individual indeed if he actually believes this drivel and illiterate also to have missed the point that Irishspeedtraps was making :rolleyes:

do not dignify this s**t with a response please and hopefully he'll get bored and leave!!!

Padraig Mor

Sandwich wrote: »

Looks like reducing speeding is the most effective way to tackle road safety.

Maybe if you failed primary school maths...

Sandwich

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Maybe if you failed primary school maths...

No. There was no such exam in my day but fairplay to you if you got through one. I did pass maths at University level though.

I'm just interpreting the the figures on the Excel summary mentioned above, but please correcting me if I am misreading the classification:
The biggest single cause is Went to the Wrong Side. Since there is another category for incorrect overtaking, I am taking WTRSOR to be inadvertantly being on the wrong side for whatever reason(alcohol, sleep, mobile phone, drugs etc) rather than a deliberate action. Drove through Yield/Stop sign, improper overtaking, and Exceeded safe speed, I think can be taken as as misjudged deliberate actions, of which Exceeded Safe Speed is the biggest.
So to curtail/discourage the scope of the biggest category of people making a judgement call (i.e. what is the safe speed) incorrectly seems like a fundamentally sound approach to road safety to me.

BTW: Its entertaining in a way, but id prefer if we could cut out the personal sniping and discuss the issue. Normally those whose argument is strong dont resort to such a tactic. It is a common tactic however for those who are struggling with the substance - undermine the opposition personally when you cannot do it to their argument.

astraboy

Sandwich wrote: »

No. There was no such exam in my day but fairplay to you if you got through one. I did pass maths at University level though.

I'm just interpreting the the figures on the Excel summary mentioned above, but please correcting me if I am misreading the classification:
The biggest single cause is Went to the Wrong Side. Since there is another category for incorrect overtaking, I am taking WTRSOR to be inadvertantly being on the wrong side for whatever reason(alcohol, sleep, mobile phone, drugs etc) rather than a deliberate action. Drove through Yield/Stop sign, improper overtaking, and Exceeded safe speed, I think can be taken as as misjudged deliberate actions, of which Exceeded Safe Speed is the biggest.
So to curtail/discourage the scope of the biggest category of people making a judgement call (i.e. what is the safe speed) incorrectly seems like a fundamentally sound approach to road safety to me.

People need to make "a judgement call" every time they sit in a car. Its better driver education that will lead to better judgements by drivers on our roads. Taking away peoples requirement to make judgements makes drivers complacent and ends up in accidents. Look how many people sail through green lights not looking to see if someone is coming the other way. They do this because the systems tells them its safe and it may not necessarily be. Accidents result. If you can't handle people making judgements on the road to a certain extent you have a larger problem then I though.

BTW: Its entertaining in a way, but id prefer if we could cut out the personal sniping and discuss the issue. Normally those whose argument is strong dont resort to such a tactic. It is a common tactic however for those who are struggling with the substance - undermine the opposition personally when you cannot do it to their argument.

Yes, and exceeding safe speed and speeding are completely different. Exceeding safe speed may be doing 75kph on a poor backroad, yet you are not "speeding". Hence my disappointment at your constant focus on speedlimits as the be all and end all of road safety. Only a smally minded person would view road safety as such a simple issue to solve, and you are both misinterpreting and ignoring plain facts in the figures above. Our argument is sound, breaking the speed limit is a very minor factor in accident rates on our roads. You just can't handle that all of what the RSA constantly spout is wrong.

astraboy

Sandwich wrote: »

No. There was no such exam in my day but fairplay to you if you got through one. I did pass maths at University level though.

I'm just interpreting the the figures on the Excel summary mentioned above, but please correcting me if I am misreading the classification:
The biggest single cause is Went to the Wrong Side. Since there is another category for incorrect overtaking, I am taking WTRSOR to be inadvertantly being on the wrong side for whatever reason(alcohol, sleep, mobile phone, drugs etc) rather than a deliberate action. Drove through Yield/Stop sign, improper overtaking, and Exceeded safe speed, I think can be taken as as misjudged deliberate actions, of which Exceeded Safe Speed is the biggest.
So to curtail/discourage the scope of the biggest category of people making a judgement call (i.e. what is the safe speed) incorrectly seems like a fundamentally sound approach to road safety to me.

BTW: Its entertaining in a way, but id prefer if we could cut out the personal sniping and discuss the issue. Normally those whose argument is strong dont resort to such a tactic. It is a common tactic however for those who are struggling with the substance - undermine the opposition personally when you cannot do it to their argument.

Yes, and exceeding safe speed and speeding are completely different. Exceeding safe speed may be doing 75kph on a poor backroad, yet you are not "speeding". Hence my disappointment at your constant focus on speedlimits as the be all and end all of road safety. Only a smally minded person would view road safety as such a simple issue to solve, and you are both misinterpreting and ignoring plain facts in the figures above. Our argument is sound, breaking the speed limit is a very minor factor in accident rates on our roads. You just can't handle that all of what the RSA constantly spout is wrong.

People make judgement calls on our roads every day, its part of driving. If you don't want people making certain judgements then you have a bigger problem then I thought. But lets all drive a 2kph under the speed limit, that'll definitely save lives.:rolleyes: I put in the rolleyes as you clearly believe speed limits to be the silver bullet of road safety, when we all know it is not. Can you explain how the death rate is the same on autobans with and without speed limits, if your speedlimits are the answer?!

D_murph

astraboy wrote: »

People make judgement calls on our roads every day, its part of driving. If you don't want people making certain judgements then you have a bigger problem then I thought. But lets all drive a 2kph under the speed limit, that'll definitely save lives.:rolleyes: I put in the rolleyes as you clearly believe speed limits to be the silver bullet of road safety, when we all know it is not. Can you explain how the death rate is the same on autobans with and without speed limits, if your speedlimits are the answer?!

X2^ i agree totally. theres loads of proof out there, such as the autobahns for example that speed limits are not as big an issue in road safety as the RSA would have you believe but hes after getting the one statistic sheet that he needed to back up his argument, despite the many others that contradict it so its like talking to a wall :rolleyes:

saying that exceeding the speed limits is the problem is an easy cop out by the government and a handy cash raising tool as well. of course its speeding and speeding alone that kills when they have laser speed guns that can measure speed but rarely ever pull anyone for the other dangerous driving related offences :rolleyes:

id like to see an excel sheet which documents the reasons people got penalty points here since their introduction and a record of the roads it happened on also.

you can bet main roads and motorways score highest for the speeding ones pretty safely IMHO :rolleyes:

Wertz

Sandwich wrote: »

The biggest single cause is Went to the Wrong Side. Since there is another category for incorrect overtaking, I am taking WTRSOR to be inadvertantly being on the wrong side for whatever reason(alcohol, sleep, mobile phone, drugs etc) rather than a deliberate action.

Of course it's obviously chemically or electronically induced...it could never be for instance deliberate avoidance of; poor road surface, potholes, road edge subsidence, stray animals, pedestrians....and of course it could never be an incorrectly imposed speed limit/bad signage by a local authority, leading to a driver thinking that 80kmph was an apt speed to negotiate that particular part of the road at...resulting in a car having to cut a corner and end up across the whiteline...
:rolleyes:

Steve

D_murph wrote: »

id like to see an excel sheet which documents the reasons people got penalty points here since their introduction and a record of the roads it happened on also

Available here:
http://www.penaltypoints.ie/points_issued.php

Who here thinks the speed camera on the N4 opposite the Spa hotel makes a difference? all the tailgaters, speeders and bad drivers slow down for a few meters then speed back up!
Its not even on a dangerous bend or anything...
Why isnt that camera on some back road? Oh yeah because you dont have to be outside the speed limit to be driving dangerously on a back road..........

revenue *cough* *cough*

pa990

that camera is outside the spa hotel, cos there was a lot of accidents at the lights just after it.. ppl werent slowing down and were rear ending cars that were stopped at the lights.

Cameras arent necessarly atthe point where accidents occur.. but can ve on the approach to it.. or at the nearest suitible site (ie, it cant be put on a corner)

D_murph

stevec wrote: »

Available here:
http://www.penaltypoints.ie/points_issued.php

thanks . thats a lot of readin' lol.

i see that "speeding" is the one big cash cow on there, as i predicted

i wonder what % of the points for "speeding" were issued on back roads though :rolleyes:

pa990

pa990 wrote: »

that camera is outside the spa hotel, cos there was a lot of accidents at the lights just after it.. ppl werent slowing down and were rear ending cars that were stopped at the lights.

Cameras arent necessarly atthe point where accidents occur.. but can ve on the approach to it.. or at the nearest suitible site (ie, it cant be put on a corner)

yeah the solution should have been getting rid of the lights!!
forward thinking people!!

javaboy

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah the solution should have been getting rid of the lights!!
forward thinking people!!

I thought they were putting a flyover there to get rid of those lights?

Sandwich

astraboy wrote: »

Yes, and exceeding safe speed and speeding are completely different. Exceeding safe speed may be doing 75kph on a poor backroad, yet you are not "speeding".....

I think we do agree on this point - no need to keep making it. Speeding does not equal exceeding the 'safe' speed. Speeding is exceeding the legal limit - even if you are still driving more safely than an alternative situation where you are not exceeding the limit, but are in fact in greater danger.
However, we cannot have either of the following:
1) Speed limits which are optimised for every inch of the road; impossibly impractical, depends on conditions, weather, car in question, etc.
2) Leave all the judgement of what is safe unrestricted in the hands of the individual. It would be nice if we could- we would all drive safely and at high speeds at times. But some people are reckless, more risk tending than others, or just under rate the risk. It would be Ok if it were only themselves that were at the risk, but their actions put others at risk also.

astraboy wrote: »

Our argument is sound, breaking the speed limit is a very minor factor in accident rates on our roads. You just can't handle that all of what the RSA constantly spout is wrong.

If sound, I have yet to be convinced - and am not closed minded - and the data above despite it source did not do anything to change my view. I would not limit the spouting to the RSA - how come countries the world over work hard to curb speeding (limits, fines, penalties etc)? Are they all wrong and a few amateurs correct? Im not denying the right to voice an opinion - but weight given to the opinion has to according to the motivation, expertise, knowledge of those giving it. Am no pansey or sycophant - but for the moment my view is that the authorites are more likely to be correct than the dilettantes (who tend to be people looking at the issue from a starting position of wanting to go faster - a not exactly impartial starting point).

Cionád

javaboy wrote: »

I thought they were putting a flyover there to get rid of those lights?

Yeah they are now, but whenever they put up that (box to make silly people go 60kph*) at the Spa they had not thought about that!


* I refer to before the current roadworks commenced, when the limit was 80kph and the ultra cautious slowed to 60kph or lower :eek:

D_murph

Sandwich wrote: »

how come countries the world over work hard to curb speeding (limits, fines, penalties etc)? Are they all wrong and a few amateurs correct?

"speeding" is an easy target the world over and its very easy to get police out with their laser speed guns (which have well over a half mile range FYI) and place them on the side of a road that has been designed for a speed far exceeding the artificial limit assigned to it for obvious reasons, i.e. turkey shoots :rolleyes:

if they truly meant to implement safety measures as they claim, they are making a very bad tactical error here because the back roads are relatively free of speed checks and yet these roads are where most of the fatal accidents occur. if it was about safety should they not police these roads also, hmmmmm?

i suspect that a lot of Garda time would be "wasted on these mostly dry spots", but if one life was saved it would be worth it except for the fact that speeding fines issued would drop drastically and that would make the politicians look bad :rolleyes:.

Steve

Sandwich wrote: »

how come countries the world over work hard to curb speeding (limits, fines, penalties etc.

To make money - plain and simple.

There are lots of statistics available on countries using cameras in the name of 'safety'.

They all make millions each year in revenue. Our own government is projecting a €70m profit from the rollout.

My arguement is and always has been - if cameras work (and stop speeding) then there should be no revenue.

At minimum they should expect the system to cost money - no, they expect to make money on it.

Any arguements made to this effect have been backed up with published figures and statements made by officials to national newspapers.

If you have anything to back up your point of view then please post it - I'm sure everyone would be interested.

On the other hand, if your point of view is merely "I trust what the government is telling me no matter what the facts are" then please back off. Don't worry, there'll be a tribunal about it sometime in the next 10 years and they'll impose a 'sun visor' tax or something to pay for it.

D_murph

stevec wrote: »

Don't worry, there'll be a tribunal about it sometime in the next 10 years and they'll impose a 'sun visor' tax or something to pay for it.

X2^ theres nothing worse than those "dilettentes" with the sun visors

Niall1234

Simply put Sandwich, if it wasn't all about the money, they would remove all fines and just have penalty points offences.

To me, the penalty points are far worse than any fine. But hey, the government won't do this as its a handy revenue stream.

I.S.T.

Sandwich, if you have two cuts on your arm, one is a little graze and not bleeding much, the other has severed an artery and is bleeding heavily, which one do you attend to first? Most sensible people would attend to the one bleeding heaviest. The Motorways and Dual Carriageways represent the little graze, the rural roads represent the serious cut with the severed artery. Why are the Gardaí, RSA and Government giving more importance to the little graze?

I.S.T.

Niall1234 wrote: »

Simply put Sandwich, if it wasn't all about the money, they would remove all fines and just have penalty points offences.

To me, the penalty points are far worse than any fine. But hey, the government won't do this as its a handy revenue stream.

+1

astraboy

From my experience abroad most police forces accept a certain level of speeding on large roads like highways etc, as the limit is too low. Just because the government says its all about speed does not make it so. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I don't think the road safety issue is that simple. Governments all over the world go after speed as its an easy target.

Finally, the state of Montana removed speed limits for a period and road deaths DROPPED significantly. They were forced by the US supreme court to put back in place speed limits and the road deaths ROSE. Explain that sandwich. :rolleyes: Perhaps it was down to a different approach to policing while there were no limits, or people simply choose the most appropriate speed for the conditions, but the figures do not lie.

Sandwich wrote: »

I have yet to be convinced - and am not closed minded - and the data above despite it source did not do anything to change my view.

Sounds pretty closed minded to me when your faced with raw data proving our point and you stick to your tired and simple position without much reason.

E92

Everyone, please have a look at this. Some very interesting arguments against having speed limits. Some very interesting arguments about having speed limits too. There is 22 pages there to read, I've only read the first one or 2 pages, but fascinating stuff.

I'll leave it to ye to decide what ye think of it(especially what JJBoxster has to say)! I wonder have I opened a can of worms with this:)?

Our man in Havana

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Sandwich, if you have two cuts on your arm, one is a little graze and not bleeding much, the other has severed an artery and is bleeding heavily, which one do you attend to first? Most sensible people would attend to the one bleeding heaviest. The Motorways and Dual Carriageways represent the little graze, the rural roads represent the serious cut with the severed artery. Why are the Gardaí, RSA and Government giving more importance to the little graze?

+1

It is all about the money, and it always will be.

E92

Further to our debate on speed and "speed kills"(FWIW it's actually speed squared that increases your risk of dying), the Tory party in the UK wants to raise the speed limit on Motorways there to 80 mph and get rid of speed cameras, and introduce "positive points" for drivers who take advanced driving tests.

I don't see how positive points would work, but incentives to get people to drive better have to be welcomed.

Link here.

What a brilliant idea, the sooner the UK gets the Conservatives in power, the better, I just wish we had like minded politicians in this country(though I know we don't).

Sandwich

astraboy wrote: »

Finally, the state of Montana removed speed limits for a period and road deaths DROPPED significantly. They were forced by the US supreme court to put back in place speed limits and the road deaths ROSE. Explain that sandwich.

No need to explain it. Just accept the facts - if thats the case then I am all for removing speed limits.

On the topic of speeding fines being a govt ruse to fill their coffers - they are the govt - they can just change taxes as they wish. No need to to go to elaborate, expensive, difficult to enforce schemes such as placing limits on driving speed, then come up with a rad police force to check on it, and technology to catch people people so that you can give them a fine. Just raise taxes. Govts arent that imaginative.

Im just guessing here, but the US supreme court forced Montana to reininstate speed limits because it ruled they were not earning enough taxes by devious methods?

Our man in Havana

Get it right folks:

Montana

Reasonable and prudent era

In the years before 1974's 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit, and for three years after the 1995 65 mph repeal, Montana had a non-numeric "reasonable and prudent" speed limit during the daytime on most rural roads. Montana Code Annotated (MCA) Section 61-8-303 said "A person . . . shall drive the vehicle . . . at a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation . . . so as not to unduly or unreasonably endanger the life, limb, property, or other rights of a person entitled to the use of the street or highway."

Montana law also specified a few numeric limits: a night speed limit, usually 55 or 65 mph (90–105 km/h), depending on road type; 25 mph (40 km/h) in urban districts and 35 mph (60 km/h) in construction zones.

The phrase "reasonable and prudent" is found in the language of most state speed laws. This allows prosecution under non-ideal conditions such as rain or snow when the posted speed limit would be imprudently fast.

No speed limit

On March 10, 1996,[38] a Montana Patrolman issued a speed ticket to a driver traveling at 85 mph (140 km/h) on a stretch of State Highway 200. The 50 year-old male driver (Rudy Stanko) was operating a 1996 Camaro with less than 10,000 miles (16,000 km) on the odometer. Although the officer gave no opinion as to what would have been a reasonable speed, the driver was convicted. The driver appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. The Court reversed the conviction in case No. 97-486 on December 23, 1998; it held that a law requiring drivers to drive at a non-numerical "reasonable and proper" speed "is so vague that it violates the Due Process Clause ... of the Montana Constitution".

75 mph speed limit

Despite this reversal, Montana's then Governor, Mark Racicot, did not convene an emergency session of the legislature. Montana technically had no speed limit whatsoever until June 1999, after the Montana legislature met in regular session and enacted a new law. The law's practical effect was to require posted limits on all roads and disallow any speed limit higher than 75 mph (120 km/h).

Montana law still contains a section that says "a person shall operate a vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a reduced rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of traffic, visibility, weather, and roadway conditions." However, this is a standard clause that appears in other state traffic codes and has the practical effect of requiring a speed lower than the posted limit where a lower speed is necessary to maintain a reasonable and prudent road manner.

Sandwich

Damn. I was sure it would have the not enough revenue for the state government thing that caused them to introduce specified limits,

But did the statistics on increased deaths not show them the error of their ways, and are there any plans to revert to the safer no numerical speed limit status?

Steve

E92 wrote: »

Everyone, please have a look at this. Some very interesting arguments against having speed limits. Some very interesting arguments about having speed limits too. There is 22 pages there to read, I've only read the first one or 2 pages, but fascinating stuff.

I'll leave it to ye to decide what ye think of it(especially what JJBoxster has to say)! I wonder have I opened a can of worms with this:)?

read through 4 pages - guys a complete nutter:rolleyes:

Sandwich

E92 wrote: »

(FWIW it's actually speed squared that increases your risk of dying)

Is a wooly statement..

What you may be thinking of is the kinetic energy of a moving body which is proportional to the square of its speed. i.e at 50kph the energy is x, at 70 it is 2x, at 100 it is 4x.

But the link between risk of dying and speed is more than just the energy deforming the body at impact. It is also a function of human reaction times, stopping distances, and vehicle manoverability....

astraboy

Sandwich wrote: »

No need to explain it. Just accept the facts - if thats the case then I am all for removing speed limits.

On the topic of speeding fines being a govt ruse to fill their coffers - they are the govt - they can just change taxes as they wish. No need to to go to elaborate, expensive, difficult to enforce schemes such as placing limits on driving speed, then come up with a rad police force to check on it, and technology to catch people people so that you can give them a fine. Just raise taxes. Govts arent that imaginative.

Im just guessing here, but the US supreme court forced Montana to reininstate speed limits because it ruled they were not earning enough taxes by devious methods?

Your wrong about the Government. Yes they can implement taxes as they wish. However we all know increased taxes are highly unpopular with the electorate. You are really not looking at the bigger picture here. Increasing road tax, VAT or income tax is possible but highly unpopular, as well as proven to reduce economic growth it the tax rise is too severe. Putting forward a disguised road safety measure to increase the amount going into the coffers is easy however, as anyone objecting or questioning the status Quo is branded a speed merchant and a cold hearted individual that does not care about road safety.

If you look at our gov's record, VRT was introduced to beef up the Gov coffers back in 92/93. It has now been rebranded as an "environmental tax", as the government is so used to the 1.6Bn a year it brings in it cannot afford to loose it. When they start making millions off the speed cameras the result will be the same, protect the cash cow with made up statistics and ministers towing the government line no matter what the contrary evidence. The saddest part of this is that people will continue to lap up the government made BS and we are having our civil liberties slowly but surely eroded with little if any social benefit.

E92

What astraboy said.

And if anyone was in any doubt that these are not about road safety, then read this article.

I've quoted the most important bit for people like Sandwich, and for anyone else who thinks speed cameras are a good idea and will save lives:

The Mail On Sunday wrote:

Tele-Traffic's business is not limited to the UK. Ireland has bought more than 400 laser cameras from their company - and over there, the government is quite open about using cameras to raise revenue. Mr Ricketts said the Irish government had made an election promise to reduce stamp duty and had made it clear they would make up the lost revenue from speeding fines.
'We have produced for them a new system to make up that revenue,' Mr Ricketts said. 'So they are going the opposite way to the UK Government. They are actually openly promoting speed enforcement as their revenue raiser.'

Sandwich

astraboy wrote: »

Your wrong about the Government. Yes they can implement taxes as they ......hearted individual that does not care about road safety.

So instead of changing allowances, tax bands, PRSI, credit card and cheque fees, DIRT, 5c onto a pint etc which most people only look at, and barely understand, around budget time (for the rest of the year just looking at the bottom line on their paycheque), the govt reasons :
"Thats it, we'll we'll put up 400 speed cameras around the country and send hundreds of thousands of bills to people every day of the year for E60, add some penaly points on top of that, and threaten them with court proceedings. They'll never notice. its the ultimate stealth tax!"

You could be right.

astraboy wrote: »

If you look at our gov's record, .... eroded with little if any social benefit.

Why the focus on the govt revenue earning side of things (they're going to get the same amount of money out of us one way or the other anyway)? The nub of the issue is whether speedingcamera/fines/points make the roads safer. If they bring a significant improvement, the govt is right to implement them. If they dont (or negligible) then the RSA is not doing its job. "The govts just out to get more money from us and spoil our fun" paranoia is just obfuscation from what effect does it have on safety.

I havnt seen any serious study/review of the period following the intro of penaly points when there was a step drop in road accidents and deaths - followed be a rise again when people realised the werent going to be pinged with points around every corner. It was very indicative of peoples response to the chance (very remote as we now know, but perceived as high at the time given the unprecedented new scenario) of loosing their licences, that deliberately modified behaviour did have a very significant effect on road safety.

Anyone familiar with any serious analysis of that period?

Esel

So, because Mr Ricketts said it as part of a sales promotion to an undercover reporter, it must be true.

How much does anybody think these cameras will generate in income for the Exchequer? A small fraction of the amount of the fall in Stamp Duty revenue. I would be surprised if the money will even cover the cost of the cameras plus the administration costs, tbh.

The government, imo, merely wants to be seen to do something, even if it is the wrong thing.

The fact is that road deaths are falling in real terms, especially when one considers the huge increase in the number of vehicles on the road.

javaboy

I wouldn't be using articles from the Mail on Sunday to support your point tbh

The undercover reporter probably asked very leading questionx such as "Will we make money off the cameras? Do other countries make money of them?"

What sort of a salesman wouldn't tell him exactly what he wanted to hear?

Sandwich

esel wrote: »

The government, imo, merely wants to be seen to do something, even if it is the wrong thing.

Is a valid point.
I consider a possiblility that that is the case - but I prefer to see some action than none (paralysis by analysis becuase we cannot come up with a 100% perfect solution). If they are proven to have no effect - then OK it was a failed attempt - but a least make the attemp.


If the case for the safety benefit of cameras is clear-cut (and I would have thought there was enough evidence available from experiences around the world to have a definitive answer by now) then the RSA is doing a very poor job of communicating it to drivers (leading to the many disgruntled posters here). If as has been sugested in earlier posts that cameras actually lead to an increase in deaths (and authorititative information confirms this) then the RSA is not only incompetent but criminally negligent. I tend to the view that they are probably not "Yes I now the more people are going to die - but think of the fine revenue we will earn......Brian Cowan will be thrilled with us"

orbital83

The undercover reporter probably asked very leading questionx such as "Will we make money off the cameras? Do other countries make money of them?"

I think the stamp duty reference is the interesting one.
I doubt very much the English reporter would have had any knowledge of what the Irish government was planning to do in a budget a few years down the road.
Perhaps leading questions were used elsewhere, but this nugget came out of its own accord.

small fraction of the amount of the fall in Stamp Duty revenue. I would be surprised if the money will even cover the cost of the cameras plus the administration costs, tbh

Projected profit of €50m per annum (govt figure - not sure how this was arrived at - realistic figure could be higher)
Add second order effects such as increased VAT on inflated insurance policies, etc

the issue is whether speedingcamera/fines/points make the roads safer.

Fair enough.
However, we need to immediately throw out any notions that the white knights in Leinster House are riding in to save our little Johnnies and Maries from being killed on the road.
The primary goal here is revenue generation. In light of the above article I would wager that the camera locations will be chosen with revenue maximisation in mind rather than danger levels.

This is FF machine at their old tricks again.
Set up the RSA, get them to implement speed camera tax and then say "the RSA did it"
Mess up the health service, then say "Harney did it"
Mess up the justice system, then say "McDowell did it"
Go into government with the Greens, implement carbon levies and then say "the Greens did it"
etc etc. These guys never change.

However in my case I think the cameras will succeed in their goal - even if they're set to flash at 0.001km/h above the limit, I'll be making damn sure they don't get a cent out of me.
In addition, there will be economic benefits as people selling certain types of "equipment" are likely to see a sudden surge in demand for their products

Sandwich

John J wrote: »

However, we need to immediately throw out any notions that the white knights in Leinster House are riding in to save our little Johnnies and Maries from being killed on the road.

Evidence to justify this out-throwing?

orbital83

Sandwich wrote: »

Evidence to justify this out-throwing?

See above article.
About as concrete as any evidence that can be produced for speed cameras methinks.

So instead of changing allowances, tax bands, PRSI, credit card and cheque fees, DIRT, 5c onto a pint etc which most people only look at, and barely understand, around budget time (for the rest of the year just looking at the bottom line on their paycheque), the govt reasons :
"Thats it, we'll we'll put up 400 speed cameras around the country and send hundreds of thousands of bills to people every day of the year for E60, add some penaly points on top of that, and threaten them with court proceedings. They'll never notice. its the ultimate stealth tax!"

Tax? It's not a tax. It's saving lives. You don't want someone to be killed, do you? 101km/h on a HQDC, that's attempted murder, you monster.
Pay up - now! :rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

John J wrote: »

Projected profit of €50m per annum (govt figure - not sure how this was arrived at - realistic figure could be higher)
Add second order effects such as increased VAT on inflated insurance policies, etc

IIRC there is no VAT or taxes on motor insurance policies. There is a government levy of 2% however brought in because AIB were poor at one stage!

John J wrote: »

However in my case I think the cameras will succeed in their goal - even if they're set to flash at 0.001km/h above the limit, I'll be making damn sure they don't get a cent out of me.

Do you mind me asking how you will avoid paying?

javaboy

John J wrote: »

See above article.
About as concrete as any evidence that can be produced for speed cameras methinks.

If Mail on Sunday articles are 'concrete evidence' then concrete homes are not better built homes.

John J wrote:

However, we need to immediately throw out any notions that the white knights in Leinster House are riding in to save our little Johnnies and Maries from being killed on the road.

Can I ask why, if the intention behind speed cameras is not to increase road safety, are all the political parties basically supporting it? Some of the politicians in Leinster House really are genuinely concerned about saving lives. They may take a naive misguided approach at times, but many really believe that speed cameras are the best way of reducing road deaths.

javaboy

John J wrote: »

However in my case I think the cameras will succeed in their goal - even if they're set to flash at 0.001km/h above the limit, I'll be making damn sure they don't get a cent out of me.

Presumably, if you reckon that if by not breaking the limit and not paying fines then they're going to succeed in their goal, you are acknowledging that the goal is not to make money.

pa990

Mod: Close . lock this thread please

The OP's original question has been dealt with... and the TV show in question, has been broadcast..

astraboy

I think the majority of the people on here see this for what it is. At best it is a poorly thought out and executed political stunt. At worst it is shameless lowest common denominator electioneering and revenue generation. I hope I'm proved wrong and speed cameras are only placed at dangerous accident spots instead of straight motorway stretches, but I doubt it. If this was all about road safety and road safety alone the following would have been sorted out long ago:

Driving tests
Provisional licensed drivers driving unaccompanied
Continious driver education
Education of Kids from 14 up about road safety
Improvement of road quality
Improved testing procedures

The above would make genuine dents in the road death numbers. However its far easier to pay a private company to place speed cameras around the country and then continuously broadcast about it and its "benefits" for road safety.

I.S.T.

pa990 wrote: »

Mod: Close . lock this thread please

The OP's original question has been dealt with... and the TV show in question, has been broadcast..

The debate that should have happened on the show is happening here. Why close the thread? If you are not interested you don't have to read it.

orbital83

. They may take a naive misguided approach at times, but many really believe that speed cameras are the best way of reducing road deaths.

A combination of naivety and fear of being branded a monstrous mass-murderer, I suspect.

kbannon wrote: »

Do you mind me asking how you will avoid paying?

Will have to get some sort of speed limiter I suppose... unless someone else can think of a better way

Presumably, if you reckon that if by not breaking the limit and not paying fines then they're going to succeed in their goal, you are acknowledging that the goal is not to make money.

Not breaking limit ==> not paying fines ==> cameras collect no revenue ==> cameras fail in their goal.
Meanwhile, as I drive at 79.99999km/h along the old N4 (where the speed limit was 100 until the government decided they'd like people to use the M4 toll bridge ooops sorry they decided it was dangerous)... sober, undrugged, and with my full licence in my glove compartment which I passed a test to obtain, people are still killed by:
- drug drivers
- untrained drivers with no licences
- people overtaking in RHD drive cars
- overseas drivers with a combination of RHD & poor training standards in their countries
- people who were handed free licences in the amnesty
- dangerous road conditions
- drunk drivers
- people driving at 80km/h on 10 foot wide back roads... or higher where such roads had insufficient traffic volumes to "justify" a camera

Am I missing something?

Mod: Close . lock this thread please

The OP's original question has been dealt with... and the TV show in question, has been broadcast..

I agree. The title is a bit out date... maybe we should start a new thread. For those who can't face reality, I have plenty of blindfolds and earmuffs here.

Sandwich

astraboy wrote: »

If this was all about road safety and road safety alone the following would have been sorted out long ago:

Driving tests
Provisional licensed drivers driving unaccompanied
Continious driver education
Education of Kids from 14 up about road safety
Improvement of road quality
Improved testing procedures

The above would make genuine dents in the road death numbers. However its far easier to pay a private company to place speed cameras around the country and then continuously broadcast about it and its "benefits" for road safety.

It is not realistic to expect everything to have been sortout long ago - if so we would already live in a perfect world. Agree with all of you points tho. They would help improve safety. But to dismiss cameras and the risk of speeding is at best premature.

Driving Tests : attempts going on for many years to solve this problem - delayed due to industrial relations and greed of the existing testers. So we have the testing shambles we deserve. But progress has been made on that recently and maybe the problem will be put to bed.

Unaccompanied Learners : Is a scandal but is a legacy from a time when attitude to the law was a bit 'Irish'. The effort to solve it last year was hamfisted - but it did prove that there is a genuine push to sort it out. And it seems it will be in the near future.

Continuous learner education : Not sure what you mean here. I still feel that people who passs the addmittedly not very taxing irish test still have the competence within themselves to drive safely - just many frequently choose not to. But yes, AFAIK there is evidence backing up those who have gone through some form of advanced driving coaching being better drivers. Whether this is due to them then having superior skills - or whether they were fundamentally more diligence/careful/selfcontrolled/rule observing anyway is hard to know.

Education of Kids from 14 up about road safetyAgree on this one. Very few who have not been close to road tragedy have very little concept of the consequences of even very low risk. Boys particularly are a great problem due to a higher innate risk taking/bravado which tails off after the age of 25. I think some countires have introduces have restricted speed limits and enginer powers for some ages or years of experience of drivers.

Road Quality Would increase road safety but dont think it is the way to go in general. Drivers should drive withing the limits of the road. But what should be sorted should be blackspots. If they are a significantly higher risk than the average then they should be rebuilt. If they can be identified for cameras then they should be marked for improvement instead. but Id say we are only talking about a couple of hundres of km of roads in total.

Improved testing procedures Not sure. Of course improvement is by definition good - but what do you mean. Related to the advance driving courses comment above. The test does focus on rules of the road and control of the vehicle. If everyone observed the rules and drove as they would for a driving test then I dont think you can dispute that the roads wold be much safer than they are today.

sandwich the speed cameras are all well and good but they will be run by private companies, their job is loyalty to their shareholders and like any business their aim will be to make a profit.
Profits will be bigger on the main roads and thus the more dangerous back roads will be ignored largely.
We all know this is what will happen. There is nothing wrong with us giving out about this and nothing wrong with opposing the scheme because it is inherently hypocritical.
We should always be aiming to improve the quality of life in Ireland we should always strive to look forward and to be honest lashing out speed cameras on all the main roads in Ireland - despite all the good natured reasons for it- is taking a step backward.

The Germans have shown the way forward in this, autobahns are the way forward. Why cant we learn from British mistakes? And follow good examples instead?

Sandwich

Sandwich wrote: »

It is not realistic to expect everything to have been sortout long ago - if so we would already live in a perfect world.

We had ten years of a boom, the problems are not rocket science related, hell the US made it to the moon on a ten year plan. It IS realistic to expect these things to be done. Its attitudes like that that let the Govt off the hook.
They should be lynched! And people like you with them! You ruin life for those of us with a bit of vision and cop on!

javaboy

John J wrote: »

Not breaking limit ==> not paying fines ==> cameras collect no revenue ==> cameras fail in their goal.

You said they would succeed in their goal originally, not they would fail.

Anyway I agree this thread might be out of date, but there's no need to start another thread. There's another speed camera thread around here that was very busy recently.