WANTED! People for speed camera debate on Questions and Answers

Cionád

Speed check on the N3 inbound just now, right at the point the limit goes from 100km/h -> 80km/h.

Luckily some van drivers saw the danger and slowed right down in both lanes

It's a dual carriageway (just near the Quinn building), like shooting fish in a barrel.

Tomas_V

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really, the vast majority of motorists DO observe the rules of the road, drive at a resonable (usually at the limit or slightly over)speed

That's a self-contradicting statement. Any driver who drives faster than the speed limit is not observing the rules of the road.

It's just a matter of accepting that changes happen and habits that you've become accustomed to, such as illegal speeding, must be unlearned. Once you've got over the initial shock, you'll wonder what the fuss was about and then maybe we won't need the cameras any more.

Tomas_V

Tomas_V wrote: »

That's a self-contradicting statement. Any driver who drives faster than the speed limit is not observing the rules of the road.

It is, but just look at what happens when workers "work to rule" ...
And I said resonable speed, not the speed, many here have this attitude that 120kmh is perfectly OK but 121kmh is WRONG!!!! and must be stamped out - zero tolerance, fined, banned etc
You need to consider the environment (road type, weather, traffic volumes)
A bit of common sense is needed when judging whether the speed others are travelling at is excessive or not!

Tomas_V

Deleted User wrote: »

A bit of common sense is needed when judging whether the speed others are travelling at is excessive or not!

It's a law. A boundary has been set, you just don't step over it. Common sense can be exercised below the speed limit.

Just take a deep breath and ease off the gas a little bit.

javaboy

Deleted User wrote: »

It is, but just look at what happens when workers "work to rule" ...

That's just a ridiculous comparison. Obeying the letter of the law and only doing exactly what work is specified in your contract are two completely different things.

Deleted User wrote: »

And I said resonable speed, not the speed, many here have this attitude that 120kmh is perfectly OK but 121kmh is WRONG!!!! and must be stamped out - zero tolerance, fined, banned etc
You need to consider the environment (road type, weather, traffic volumes)
A bit of common sense is needed when judging whether the speed others are travelling at is excessive or not!

While I'm definitely on the anti-speeding side of the fence, I don't for a second think that that extra 1km/h instantly makes you dangerous but can you imagine the case if we didn't have limits and drivers were only prosecuted for driving at speeds considered inappropriate for the conditions? It would be bedlam. If a Garda said you were driving too fast for the conditions, you could just say well Gard I'm actually a brilliant driver with traction control and all sorts of gizmos in my car so I really wasn't.

Not all drivers can be trusted to self-regulate therefore all drivers must be regulated. We have to have a set speed limit. You just have to deal with it. It's not that big a deal.

P.S. This poster does not advocate the shooting fish in a barrel approach.

javaboy

javaboy wrote: »

While I'm definitely on the anti-speeding side of the fence, I don't for a second think that that extra 1km/h instantly makes you dangerous but can you imagine the case if we didn't have limits and drivers were only prosecuted for driving at speeds considered inappropriate for the conditions? It would be bedlam.

P.S. This poster does not advocate the shooting fish in a barrel approach.

I'm referring to the generally accepted (unofficial) speed limit that most police forces around the world follow when deciding whether to convict or not (limit +15%) this is usually what fixed cameras use as the trigger point. Also it's the average speed on most freeflowing motorways.

Tomas_V

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm referring to the generally accepted (unofficial) speed limit that most police forces around the world follow when deciding whether to convict or not (limit +15%) this is usually what fixed cameras use as the trigger point. Also it's the average speed on most freeflowing motorways.

They're unofficial, you can't count on them. Best to play safe and stay below the limit.

Road safety should not be a cat and mouse game between people who enforce safety rules and people who want to evade them. The faster a car goes, the more damage it can cause. Lower the speed and you lower the damage. The limits are high enough, just learn to observe them and speed cameras will never be a problem.

MrPudding

Sandwich wrote: »

Its a good thing then that a majority of the 2.5 million have more concern for road safety than to do something that irresponsible.:)

See, what we have here is a very major difference in opinion. We have some people, like yourself that believe the hype. Speeding is the number one killer on the roads, even though the governments own figures show this to be false. You then, obviously, think that anyone that speeds, or tries to say that speeding is not neccessarily the work of satan, is evil.

Then you have the other side. We believe that for the most part people who go a little over the speed limit do not neccesarily need to be punished. We see the need for speed limits and in some cases, my own for example, we feels that some speed limits should be reduced. Even though we think speeding is not neccessarily bad we are interested in road safety and reducing road incidents. We simplt don't feel that speed cameras are the way to do it.

Tomas_V wrote: »

The UK?

As a couple of posters have pointed out, not the case. I have not checked it for a while but have a look at www.safespeed.org .They were collected road incident figures for all the counties in the UK. Those with camera partnerships were, for the most part, seeing increases in deaths and incidents.

Tomas_V wrote: »

An average fatal accident has an economic cost of about 1m euro. Just hosing the blood and guts off the road costs a few thousand & it's usually deemed insensitive to send the bill to the relatives.

This is very sad, and also a bit irrelevent. What if the incident was not caused by a speeder? What if it was dangerous driving and it was in an area where there was no dangerous driving camera....... oh wait....... cameras can't detect dangerous driving.... that would need a gardai on the road.... oh well, we will see less of those once the cameras kick in.

Tomas_V wrote: »

But,we all know that illegal speeding will never to eradicated. Hopefully it can be reduced significantly by equipping the Gardai with the right tools for the job.

I would be more interested in inappropriate speed being addressed, that will hve a greater impact on road deaths than the evil that is "illegal speeding."

E92 wrote: »

And the number of fatalities in the UK has not changed since the introduction of speed cameras.

Not true. A number of counties have seen road deaths increase since the introduction of cameras. We all know what happens. The camers go up adn police are taken off road duties. Dangerous driving then increases adn do the deaths. This has been repeated all over the UK. I don't have time to compile figures, but you should get everything you need on www.safespeed.org.

Tomas_V wrote: »

It's a law. A boundary has been set, you just don't step over it. Common sense can be exercised below the speed limit.

Just take a deep breath and ease off the gas a little bit.

The problem is, in a lot of cases, common sense is not being exercised even below the speed limit. You have case where there is a long queue of traffic travelling 30 kph beow the allowable limit. We have all seen the guy deciding he has had enough and overtaking where he really shouldn't. He might not be breaking the limit, but he is crossing white lines and overtaking on corners. A camera will not get him. The same for country roads, the limit is 80 but you really should not do more than 40. So the guy doing 70 could be in trouble, but at leat he is not doing "illegal speeding..."

MrP

Seth Brundle

@ Tomas_V - So do you believe that all speed limits are appropriate?

javaboy

MrPudding wrote: »

The problem is, in a lot of cases, common sense is not being exercised even below the speed limit. You have case where there is a long queue of traffic travelling 30 kph beow the allowable limit. We have all seen the guy deciding he has had enough and overtaking where he really shouldn't. He might not be breaking the limit, but he is crossing white lines and overtaking on corners. A camera will not get him. The same for country roads, the limit is 80 but you really should not do more than 40. So the guy doing 70 could be in trouble, but at leat he is not doing "illegal speeding..."

MrP

Of course a camera will not get him but I don't think even the most rabid pro-camera anti-speeding person has ever suggested abolishing the GTC and not enforcing reckless overtaking etc. so what is your point?

Tomas_V

kbannon wrote: »

@ Tomas_V - So do you believe that all speed limits are appropriate?

I believe that observing the posted legal speed limit is just one of a number of safe behaviours all road users should engage in. We all should follow the same rules. That's why we all drive on the left. Similarly, if a limit is posted, everyone should respect it.

I am sure that there are some speed limits that are lower than equivalent roads elsewhere, but more often, motorists decide that a limit is 'inappropriate' because they're ignorant of the safety factors that have influenced the NRA's or local council's decision.

If people think a limit in a particular place is inappropriate, they should take it up with the relevant authorities, not break the law.

Seth Brundle

Tomas_V wrote: »

I believe that observing the posted legal speed limit is just one of a number of safe behaviours all road users should engage in. We all should follow the same rules. That's why we all drive on the left. Similarly, if a limit is posted, everyone should respect it.

I am sure that there are some speed limits that are lower than equivalent roads elsewhere, but more often, motorists decide that a limit is 'inappropriate' because they're ignorant of the safety factors that have influenced the NRA's or local council's decision.

If people think a limit in a particular place is inappropriate, they should take it up with the relevant authorities, not break the law.

OK then.
1. please read over some of the posts by GTC - a member of the Garda Traffic Corps.
2. You claim that motorists may be ignorant of the safety factors influencing the NRA or the local authorities decision. Many speed limits in urban areas are dicataed by traffic flows and not safety. Furthermore, I recently had to contact a SDCC engineer to notify him that the speed limit signs were bith illegal signs and also that they posted an incorrect speed limit. The response back was one suggesting that they were not wrong (they were!) - shortly afterwards they changed. Our local authorities regularly make mistakes!

MrPudding

javaboy wrote: »

Of course a camera will not get him but I don't think even the most rabid pro-camera anti-speeding person has ever suggested abolishing the GTC and not enforcing reckless overtaking etc. so what is your point?

My point is, experience has shown that where there is an increasing reliance on cameras there is a reduction of police on the roads, leading to an increase in incidents.

The government has no interest in reducing incidents or road deaths. What they are interested in is "appearing" to be interested in it. This means cranking up the propaganda machine and trying to get everyone to believe that speeding is public enemy number one. Blaming speeding is good for the government in a number of ways.... First of all, you can blame the driver, this is very important, in government you must alway be able to blame someone else for problems. Secondly, you can engage in revenue generation excercises and call it a road safety initiative. Then you can release press statement, accompanied by much hand wringing and nashing of teeth, explaining how you are doing so much, but people keep insisting on speeding. The gullible amongst the population lap this up and think they are great.

This is much better for them than actually trying to fix the problem.

MrP

D_murph

MrPudding wrote: »

My point is, experience has shown that where there is an increasing reliance on cameras there is a reduction of police on the roads, leading to an increase in incidents.

The government has no interest in reducing incidents or road deaths. What they are interested in is "appearing" to be interested in it. This means cranking up the propaganda machine and trying to get everyone to believe that speeding is public enemy number one. Blaming speeding is good for the government in a number of ways.... First of all, you can blame the driver, this is very important, in government you must alway be able to blame someone else for problems. Secondly, you can engage in revenue generation excercises and call it a road safety initiative. Then you can release press statement, accompanied by much hand wringing and nashing of teeth, explaining how you are doing so much, but people keep insisting on speeding. The gullible amongst the population lap this up and think they are great.

This is much better for them than actually trying to fix the problem.

MrP

great post. so true too.

"speeding" as its called is not the main cause of road deaths but its an easy target, literally when you have guards out with their laser speed guns that can clock you a half mile away and more.

however the government can implement a highway robbery operation from this to gain revenue and say that its for our safety :rolleyes:

anyone that speeds is evil and anyone that opposes it is not interested in road safety, the perfect crime IMO.

there will be plenty gullible people out there that will believe this BS. just look at the amount of speed limit fans on here for example who have been conned into believing this crap :rolleyes:.

oh well as long as the guards insist on hiding in bushes or doing speed checks on 60kmh sections of dual carriageway, i can sleep soundly knowing that the road will be safe for me to go to work in the morning :rolleyes:

Tomas_V

kbannon wrote: »

1. please read over some of the posts by GTC - a member of the Garda Traffic Corps.

The poster does indicate that his views are not those of the GTC. Why is he making statements here, identifying himself as a Garda?

kbannon wrote: »

I recently had to contact a SDCC engineer to notify him that the speed limit signs were bith illegal signs and also that they posted an incorrect speed limit. The response back was one suggesting that they were not wrong (they were!) - shortly afterwards they changed. Our local authorities regularly make mistakes!

What you did was correct. But we're discussing people deliberately breaking validly posted speed limits.

Seth Brundle

Tomas_V wrote: »

The poster does indicate that his views are not those of the GTC. Why is he making statements here, identifying himself as a Garda?

What do you expect him to write? GTC has made a number of posts indicating that there is an ill-feeling within the ranks of the traffic corps at the direction of enforcement. The authorities want to target the easy pickings whereas the rank and file members want to do the job properly. Please read their views as it (to an extent) opposes much of what you are posting.

Tomas_V wrote: »

What you did was correct. But we're discussing people deliberately breaking validly posted speed limits.

No I responded to your claim that we should contact the NRA/LAs about getting change done. LAs don't always get it right first time! Look at the Naas Rd last year.
Deliberately breaking the speed limit is such a wide ranging offence.
Is doing 100km/h on a three lane dual carriageway (with HS) where the limit is 60km/h dangerous?
Is driving at 25km/h outside a school when the kids are leaving dangerous?

astraboy

kbannon wrote: »

What do you expect him to write? GTC has made a number of posts indicating that there is an ill-feeling within the ranks of the traffic corps at the direction of enforcement. The authorities want to target the easy pickings whereas the rank and file members want to do the job properly. Please read their views as it (to an extent) opposes much of what you are posting.

No I responded to your claim that we should contact the NRA/LAs about getting change done. LAs don't always get it right first time! Look at the Naas Rd last year.
Deliberately breaking the speed limit is such a wide ranging offence.
Is doing 100km/h on a three lane dual carriageway (with HS) where the limit is 60km/h wrong?
Is driving at 25km/h outside a school when the kids are leaving wrong?

Well said! I think most regular posters will know my POV in this ridiclous myopic focus on "speeding", its such bull**** its crazy.

Your point in bold is the most striking. The speed limit outside many schools would be 50Kph, but driving past at that speed when the kids are leaving and parents cars are parked both sides of the road is silly, yet legal. Doing 100Kph on a Dual carriageway with a stupid 60kph limit on a clear day with little traffic, or free moving traffic, is of course probably safe(depending on the conditions) however illegal. Of course that low limit is for yours, and my safety KBannon, how can we ignore what is clearly good for us as dictated by those with the crystal ball in the local council office......:D:rolleyes:

Tomas_V

kbannon wrote: »

What do you expect him to write?

I expect him not to say (here) that he's a Garda.

E92

I think it's time this thread was closed. The same arguments are repeating themselves again and again. I think we all know where each of us stands on this whole "speeding" nonsense. It's getting boring at this stage and there is far too much trolling going around, certain people are acting like spoilt children, saying things designed to provoke people(it is a Motors forum, what do people expect car enthusiasts to do, say nothing in the face of being told by people who don't share our passion what to do?), never posting anything useful here but instead trying to piss car enthusiasts off by only coming onto speeding threads and obviously giving a very selective account of reality and if they don't strike lucky the first time, then they'll repeat themselves and probably smiling very smugly in the background from the so called "moral high ground" at some peoples' open admission to breaking the law.

I'm normally a patient and understanding person but I'm afraid my patience runs very dry when some people are only coming on to give us car enthusiasts lectures on what we should and should not do.

It would be the equivalent of me going on to the "Green Issues" forum and telling people that climate change was a load of nonsense(which it is btw, in the 60s they thought we were heading for another Ice Age and now look at where we are).

pburns

E92 wrote: »

I think it's time this thread was closed. The same arguments are repeating themselves again and again. I think we all know where each of us stands on this whole "speeding" nonsense. It's getting boring at this stage and there is far too much trolling going around, certain people are acting like spoilt children, saying things designed to provoke people(it is a Motors forum, what do people expect car enthusiasts to do, say nothing in the face of being told by people who don't share our passion what to do?), never posting anything useful here but instead trying to piss car enthusiasts off by only coming onto speeding threads and obviously giving a very selective account of reality and if they don't strike lucky the first time, then they'll repeat themselves and probably smiling very smugly in the background from the so called "moral high ground" at some peoples' open admission to breaking the law.

I'm normally a patient and understanding person but I'm afraid my patience runs very dry when some people are only coming on to give us car enthusiasts lectures on what we should and should not do.

It would be the equivalent of me going on to the "Green Issues" forum and telling people that climate change was a load of nonsense(which it is btw, in the 60s they thought we were heading for another Ice Age and now look at where we are).

+1
As usual common sense from E92...

I'm usually an advocate of minimal moderation on there 'ere internet forum thingies but the same anti-speeding arguments are being re-hashed over-and-over-and-over by two or three anti-speeding zealots.

Pissing down on motor enthusiasts from the high moral ground is pretty lame.

D_murph

pburns wrote: »

+1
As usual common sense from E92...

I'm usually an advocate of minimal moderation on there 'ere internet forum thingies but the same anti-speeding arguments are being re-hashed over-and-over-and-over by two or three anti-speeding zealots.

Pissing down on motor enthusiasts from the high moral ground is pretty lame.

X2^

these individuals most likely dont practice what they preach and should really STFU :mad:

that and get a life too :rolleyes:

astraboy

What E92 said. As usual I agree 100% with the man. **** sick of coming on here to be told off like a naughty school child, when in reality its a motors forum for CAR enthusiasts, and people to ask questions about buying and selling cars and what to look out for. Instead of talking about speed limits and rehashing the tired old points with the same 3 or 4 clowns coming on here to troll, we should be discussing the latest F1 or WRC car, or weather an Audi quattro is better then the origional BMW M3.

High horse bandits, take it somewhere else. Perhaps a "oooooo speeding is sooo evil I want to show how great I am by sticking to the speed limit no matter what" sub form could be set up to keep these trolls away from our motors forum!:D

Seth Brundle

E92 wrote: »

I think it's time this thread was closed.

Its going around in circles so to quote James Hetfield
"...So let it be written
So let it be done..."