WANTED! People for speed camera debate on Questions and Answers

javaboy

Mena wrote: »

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:

The cameras won't stop paedophilia either. There will still be Garda out there who still have the power to stop dangerous drivers like the person going 100km/h with 2m visibility.

I agree that the 3 minutes and 37 seconds devoted to the speed camera 'debate' last night was a sham. The problem is it won't get another airing now for ages.

I.S.T.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

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).

Ok, fair point, maybe I will do a new table with the stats for fatal collisions alone, but I looked through the stats for fatal collisions for the six years and it still does not add up to 33%. Anyway why would anyone just concentrate on fatal collisions? Serious injury collisions are just as bad (and probably worse for the people who like to think in monetary terms).

Padraig Mor wrote: »

He also ignores single vehicle collisions which are a huge part of the problem, and which have a higher "speeding" contributory factor (26%).

As far as I can see single vehicle collisions are only mentioned in the most recent report, 2006. There are only stats for two vehicle collisions in the reports for 2000 - 2005. And in the 2006 report they do not mention any of the other contributory factors. This looks like an examle of cherry picking statistics to suit themselves. Why would they not mention what is causing the other 74% of single vehicle accidents?

I.S.T.

javaboy wrote: »

The cameras won't stop paedophilia either. There will still be Garda out there who still have the power to stop dangerous drivers like the person going 100km/h with 2m visibility.

The problem is that if we go down the same road the UK have then our accident statistics will actually get worse. They have an overreliance on cameras and have cut back on police patrols. Cameras don't catch people overtaking dangerously, tailgating, etc whereas a police patrol will.

Steve

Padraig Mor wrote: »

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.

OK - hadn't spotted that. Agree 100%

javaboy

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

The problem is that if we go down the same road the UK have then our accident statistics will actually get worse. They have an overreliance on cameras and have cut back on police patrols. Cameras don't catch people overtaking dangerously, tailgating, etc whereas a police patrol will.

That's the problem. I'd rather see more traffic corps. In 3 years of driving I've been stopped by gardai twice and that was at routine checkpoints. No license check either time (I was on first provisional with licensed driver first time and I was on 2nd prov. the second time with passenger). Unless the gardai in question had hawkeyes, they didn't do a tax/nct/insurance check either. I drive some very nasty dangerous backroads every day and I've seen countless cars in a ditch/on their roof etc. Speed cameras might have stopped some of these. Visible garda presence on the roads would have prevented some of them without a doubt.

We probably will go down the overreliance route which will be a disaster. It's like I said in an earlier post: When Bowman asked on Q&A last night "who thinks speed cameras will effectively reduce deaths?" and "Who thinks they're a misuse of resources?". Even though I am in favour of speed cameras, I don't think they're the best way to reduce road deaths. I would have had my hand up for both questions.

E92

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

The problem is that if we go down the same road the UK have then our accident statistics will actually get worse. They have an overreliance on cameras and have cut back on police patrols. Cameras don't catch people overtaking dangerously, tailgating, etc whereas a police patrol will.

+1million. Exactly why I hate speed cameras. If only we had more common sense like that.

ballooba

javaboy wrote: »

The cameras won't stop paedophilia either. There will still be Garda out there who still have the power to stop dangerous drivers like the person going 100km/h with 2m visibility.

Paedophilia is not a road safety issue. This is a huge deployment of resources with a very narrow scope. 500 extra Gardai would have alot more positive effect than 600 cameras if they actually enforced the penalty point offences.

javaboy

ballooba wrote: »

Paedophilia is not a road safety issue. This is a huge deployment of resources with a very narrow scope. 500 extra Gardai would have alot more positive effect than 600 cameras if they actually enforced the penalty point offences.

Yeah agreed. The paedophilia example was extreme but I was trying to make the point that it's not all or nothing. 500 extra Gardai and 600 cameras (since the cameras aren't expected to cost any money) would be better IMHO.

ballooba

javaboy wrote: »

Yeah agreed. The paedophilia example was extreme but I was trying to make the point that it's not all or nothing. 500 extra Gardai and 600 cameras (since the cameras aren't expected to cost any money) would be better IMHO.

Do you really think that the money raised from speed cameras will be added to the Garda Traffic Bureau budget next year? That would be incredibly naiive. The money is not there for both.

javaboy

ballooba wrote: »

Do you really think that the money raised from speed cameras will be added to the Garda Traffic Bureau budget next year? That would be incredibly naiive. The money is not there for both.

No I don't think that the money will be added to the garda traffic budget. I don't think it will be used to fill potholes either. I'm not naive enough for that.

If I was given the choice between 500 new GTC and 600 new cameras I'd pick the traffic corps every time. Unfortunately, the extra gardai option is not on the cards but the cameras are.

I.S.T.

javaboy wrote: »

No I don't think that the money will be added to the garda traffic budget. I don't think it will be used to fill potholes either. I'm not naive enough for that.

If I was given the choice between 500 new GTC and 600 new cameras I'd pick the traffic corps every time. Unfortunately, the extra gardai option is not on the cards but the cameras are.

That can be changed though. The first step is to put our heads together and prove the 33% figure (and 40%) that the RSA are using is incorrect or misleading. We need to prove they are misleading the public.

Seth Brundle

I fear that it will be impossible for you to prove that the stats are misleading as that is what the garda have provided them with. The Garda Siochanna are not going to admit that their methods were flawed, but that current methods are improvements on old practices.

ballooba

javaboy wrote: »

No I don't think that the money will be added to the garda traffic budget. I don't think it will be used to fill potholes either. I'm not naive enough for that.

If I was given the choice between 500 new GTC and 600 new cameras I'd pick the traffic corps every time. Unfortunately, the extra gardai option is not on the cards but the cameras are.

There is no reason why it shouldn't. Especially seeing as unemployment is on the up. We could retrain 500 constuction workers as Traffic Corp Gardai. This is a misguided policy that should be scrapped.

javaboy

ballooba wrote: »

There is no reason why it shouldn't. Especially seeing as unemployment is on the up. We could retrain 500 constuction workers as Traffic Corp Gardai. This is a misguided policy that should be scrapped.

Now who's being naive? :D:D

I'd love to see more GTC vehicles knocking around. As I've said before I've only been through 2 checkpoints in 3 years driving and I'm sure there's people who have never been stopped in much longer. I've never been breathalysed/had my vehicle inspected/had my license inspected. I am doing about 18000+miles a year on a mixture of all sort of roads. This is obviously a joke.

I seriously hope that more traffic corps gardai is on the cards but I don't see it happening. The way I see it, the cameras are better than no enforcement (which is practically the situation now).

Seth Brundle

I'm not sure where you do those 18k+miles but I come across unmarked cars everyday, most of which I would suspect are doing traffic duties in some shape or form.

Padraig Mor

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

And in the 2006 report they do not mention any of the other contributory factors. This looks like an examle of cherry picking statistics to suit themselves. Why would they not mention what is causing the other 74% of single vehicle accidents?

A very good question. I think data pertaining to the involvement of alcohol would be very revealing.

E92

Since we're all talking about statistics, the UK's Department for Transport said that speeding was responsible for just 5% of deaths on the UKs roads. Reports from several British publications such as the Daily Telegraph and the BBC said speeding was responsible for between 4 and 7% of deaths on their roads. When you consider that very few people in the UK travel at the 70 mph speed limit(they all go faster when the opportunity presents itself) on Motorways(their own Government says the average speed on a British Motorway is exactly 70 mph), you don't need to be a genius to see that there is a massive gap between what they're saying there and what we're being told here. Also worth noting is the fact that German Autobahns without a speed limit have the same fatality rate as those with a speed limit, and the average speed on Autobahns without the inconvenience of a speed limit is 150 km/h(Autobahns with a speed limit are usually 130, but some are 120, and the A2 is 140, and about 10% of Autobahns are undergoing roadworks at any given time, so the speed limit there is often only 80 or even 60 km/h), the only risk to safety from Autobahns without speed limit are vans like the Transit which are more likely to overturn(because they're tall, and can go much faster these days than before, as the modern common rail diesel engines in cars are also found in vans these days apparently), but cars have been found to have no safety risk as a result of no speed limit.

D_murph

Padraig Mor wrote: »

A very good question. I think data pertaining to the involvement of alcohol would be very revealing.

good point considering the amount of single car fatalaties that occur in the early hours of the morning at weekends. it should be obvious that drink driving is the real cause in most of these and not speed alone.

I.S.T.

D_murph wrote: »

good point considering the amount of single car fatalaties that occur in the early hours of the morning at weekends. it should be obvious that drink driving is the real cause in most of these and not speed alone.

Maybe suicide is a cause of a certain % of these accidents also

I.S.T.

kbannon wrote: »

I fear that it will be impossible for you to prove that the stats are misleading as that is what the garda have provided them with. The Garda Siochanna are not going to admit that their methods were flawed, but that current methods are improvements on old practices.

I don't believe the guards are providing the RSA with misleading stats, I suspect the RSA are cherry picking the stats provided by the guards and misleading the public. The National Safety Council, now known as the RSA, were well known for twisting statistics when it came to young driver accidents. I've dig this up from the MIJAG website (http://www.mijag.com/other/nsc_meeting01.asp

"MIJAG have written to the NSC in the past highlighting the error of your continued assertion that 1,000 of this years 66,000 Leaving Cert students will be dead in eight years time from road accidents. If this were accurate it means that already this year approximately 100 of that group must have been killed, plus the 100 from last years group and the other six groups that are still under 25. Therefore 800 people between the ages of 17 and 25 should have died already this year from road accidents equal to almost three times the actual overall total. Clearly the NSC are having trouble understanding the facts and they should stop using this inaccurate but sexy soundbite."

unkel

And then there's one of the last Irish taboos. Even if the box was available on the form, no official is going to tick it and as such it will not show up in any statistics

Deleted User wrote: »

If a drunk driver plows into a wall at 100mph was it because he was blind drunk or because he was speeding?

Or because he committed suicide?

I.S.T.

E92 wrote: »

Since we're all talking about statistics, the UK's Department for Transport said that speeding was responsible for just 5% of deaths on the UKs roads.

The UK authorities used to say that one third of accidents are caused by speeding or excessive speed (what a coincidence, that's what the RSA are saying now!) until they were proved wrong. Have a look at http://www.safespeed.org.uk/lie.html

I.S.T.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

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).

Ok, here is the same table but with the stats for fatal collisions only. The average fatal collisions caused by "exceeded safe speed" over the 7 years is 19%.

Seth Brundle

Good work IST but what proportion of that 19% is down to the car exceeding the posted speed limit?

Padraig Mor

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Ok, here is the same table but with the stats for fatal collisions only. The average fatal collisions caused by "exceeded safe speed" over the 7 years is 19%.

Good work IST. I see that "went to the wrong side of the road" is cited twice as often as "excessive speed". Why not mount a 'drive on the correct side of the road morons!' campaign?

Padraig Mor

kbannon wrote: »

Good work IST but what proportion of that 19% is down to the car exceeding the posted speed limit?

They don't give figures for that unfortunately. In the UK, I believe that 7% are attributed to exceeding a 'safe speed' and 4% to exceeding the posted speed limit.

Seth Brundle

Assuming thats the case, we are spending €25m* annually on a project that will tackle the cause of about 4% of fatalities** yet spending next to nothing on other areas!

* excluding direct garda duties
** any decrease in fatalities is welcomed

ballooba

javaboy wrote: »

I seriously hope that more traffic corps gardai is on the cards but I don't see it happening. The way I see it, the cameras are better than no enforcement (which is practically the situation now).

It comes down to how more effective a Garda can be than a camera. I don't know if you could put a figure on that but a Garda can detect the full range of penalty point offences. Whereas a camera can only detect one.

GTC don't prosecute traffic offences. I see them the whole time on their bikes in town ignoring yellow box infringements and the like. It seems like they only enforce on certain penalty point offences.

Sandwich

Well done IrishSteepdTraps. Interesting data.

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

astraboy

Sandwich wrote: »

Well done IrishSteepdTraps. Interesting data.

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

EHHH, no! Reducing peoples excessive speed for conditions, and reducing SPEEDING are completely different! When will you get it through your thick skull that speeding(breaking the speed limit) is a minor cause of accidents. Its inappropriate speed(ie speed within the limit but over what is safe for conditions), bad roads, and poor driver education. Your like a ****ing scratched cd man, ride off on your high horse you insufferable person.