WANTED! People for speed camera debate on Questions and Answers

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.

D_murph

John J wrote: »

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:

so true lol.

orbital83

Sandwich wrote: »

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.

This is reasonable but only if we're prepared to accept that Ireland's roads will always have a higher inherent risk factor than countries like the UK - and as a consequence we will never attain fatality levels as low as they have over there.

The UK is a predominately urban society with dense population centres connected by high quality road corridors and reasonable public transport alternatives.
Ireland has a higher rural population relying on regional roads that often hark back to the days of donkey and cart, and were never designed to take the traffic volumes now forced upon them.
Comparison of fatalities per head of population are pointless.

Of course, it would help if planning decisions were taken in such a way to control this problem, rather than making it worse. Not likely.
Anecdotally, just yesterday I travelled out the Ballinalee road from Longford town - quite a busy road with an 80 speed limit - and had to take a right turn on a bend with zero visibility.
Incredibly dangerous road design - so much so I'll be driving on and turning around further up the road in future.
There was a fatal accident on this road just last week.

The startling fact though is that our beloved planning authorities recently approved 330 houses, a golf course and a hotel up the same back road.
Road safety didn't have a look in when the sweet scent of stamp duty filled the air. No-one seemed to care that a thousand people would be undertaking a maneouvre I swear I'll never do again.
It was almost a relief to hear the developer went belly-up after finishing about 70 of the units.

The reality is speed cameras are cheap and simple - they hurt our poor ministers' heads much less than actually trying to think outside the box on how to tackle road safety both now and in the future. If they generate a few bob in the process, all the better.

Police in the UK are now setting up cameras to monitor "bad driving", The bbc report also shows two crashes that were directly caused by the driver seeing a camera and stamping on the brakes.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7358372.stm

cyclopath2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Police in the UK are now setting up cameras to monitor "bad driving", The bbc report also shows two crashes that were directly caused by the driver seeing a camera and stamping on the brakes.

You could interpret the report two ways:

One is that the drivers who lost control demonstrated that they were going too fast to stop 'in the distance they could see to be clear', and if a dog had run out or a piece of detritus blown onto the road, the outcome would have been similar.

Another interpretation is that there is a need for speed traps to be less distracting.

Sandwich

European Transport Safety Council’s programme manager Graziella Jost said: “Ireland’s outstanding achievement is encouraging for road safety organisations all over Europe. The next steps are to lower the blood-alcohol concentration limits and implement the safety camera network as early as possible in an effort to sustain similar progress in 2008.”

On balance still seems to be deemed the best way to go though. The more cameras the safer.

cyclopath2001

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You could interpret the report two ways:

One is that the drivers who lost control demonstrated that they were going too fast to stop 'in the distance they could see to be clear', and if a dog had run out or a piece of detritus blown onto the road, the outcome would have been similar.

Visibility was not a problen in either incident, the cars saw the camera form quite a considerable distance away, they panicked!

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Another interpretation is that there is a need for speed traps to be less distracting.

Advance warning signs should be compulsary - after all are they "safety cameras" or "revenue gatherers"

Edit:Look at it another way, are the police there to make the roads safer or just to catch as many speeders as possible to make the statistics look good.

D_murph

cyclopath2001 wrote:

You could interpret the report two ways:

One is that the drivers who lost control demonstrated that they were going too fast to stop 'in the distance they could see to be clear', and if a dog had run out or a piece of detritus blown onto the road, the outcome would have been similar.

Another interpretation is that there is a need for speed traps to be less distracting.

still do you think that any of those crashes would have happened if the camera van wasnt there?

that and how close one of the cars that crashed came to taking out another innocent driver that was close by.

oh well i guess a few incidents like that would only give them a further excuse to be there :rolleyes:

javaboy

Deleted User wrote: »

Advance warning signs should be compulsary - after all are they "safety cameras" or "revenue gatherers"

Edit:Look at it another way, are the police there to make the roads safer or just to catch as many speeders as possible to make the statistics look good.

If all the speed/safety cameras have advance warning signs then nobody will speed around the cameras but they will continue to speed in other areas because they know they will not be caught.

The outcome is that stretches of road observed by cameras will not have speeders. So each camera will improve safety on one stretch of road only.

If there is a mix of advertised and hidden speed cameras, then each camera will have an indirect knock on effect on more than one road because you won't know where they are. For the roads that really need an immediate reduction in speeding, sure give advance warnings because it's the fastest way to reduce speeding in the short term.


*when I say speed/speeding I mean exeeding the speed limit

astraboy

javaboy wrote: »

*when I say speed/speeding I mean exeeding the speed limit

Which if we prevent will stop road deaths, right?:rolleyes: Plenty of fatalities happen under the speed limit again this myopic focus on speeding as the sole road safety issue really is ridiculous. Who cares if people speed else where and there are no cameras, if they are driving safely what, exactly, is the problem.

Review all speed limits so they reflect the road they are on, ie, no 60kph dualcarriage ways, and then put highly visible cameras on dangerous roads. Having them hidden, on a straight, safe dual carriage way with a low speed limit is revenue grabbing and does nothing for road safety. In fact, it tarnishes the whole road safety argument, turning people against what can be, in moderation, decent and effective safety measures.

javaboy

astraboy wrote: »

Which if we prevent will stop road deaths, right?:rolleyes: Plenty of fatalities happen under the speed limit again this myopic focus on speeding as the sole road safety issue really is ridiculous. Who cares if people speed else where and there are no cameras, if they are driving safely what, exactly, is the problem.

Review all speed limits so they reflect the road they are on, ie, no 60kph dualcarriage ways, and then put highly visible cameras on dangerous roads. Having them hidden, on a straight, safe dual carriage way with a low speed limit is revenue grabbing and does nothing for road safety. In fact, it tarnishes the whole road safety argument, turning people against what can be, in moderation, decent and effective safety measures.

I never said it will prevent road deaths so you can put your sarcastic roll eyes smiley away. I have said repeatedly that exceeding the speed limit isn't the be all and end all in road deaths. Don't lump me in with those who are that single-minded.

We all know that there are drivers out there who will go as fast as they can without getting caught. The Gardai don't have the resources to police all the roads. It's simply not possible. The advantage of speed cameras is that they can efficiently enforce a very small aspect of the rules of the road unmanned. The reason I believe there should be some hidden cameras is becuase it is a more efficient use of resources. One camera can effectively enforce speed limits on many roads.

I agree though with reviewing the speed limits and with putting them on the dangerous roads more than the straight duallers/mways.