'Scrap Cash-Cow Speed Cameras'

Marcus.Aurelius

Just an addition to my post, does Cyclopath expect me to sit in me high vis traffic corps jacket on a backroad in Kinsealy so i can watch a boy racer kill himself driving into a ditch at a speed well below the usual posted 80 kph on a back road at 3 AM instead of cruising the motorways watching for drunk drivers?

Steve

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Automated speed traps and the points system offer one way to identify and remove from the roads people who persistently and deliberately break the law. We still need active intervention by the Gardai to deal with speeding on roads unsuitable for automated speed traps and for other offenses.

From what I can see the message is getting through to many road-users but there's a die-hard element who are still in anger/denial.

I respect your argument that everybody must obey the law, I am not in any way condoning that people break it - at the same time, I'll freely admit to breaking said law on occasion when conditions permit it (e.g. during overtaking).

What you fail to grasp is that most accidents on Irish roads are caused by stupidity, inexperience, and elevated testosterone levels. These cannot be policed by cameras. They can and (I hope) will be policed by intelligent humans in the form of garda traffic corps who have been trained to recognize bad driving behavior and deal with it as such. The cameras, sadly, cannot do this.

heyjude

Speed cameras are a seemingly simple solution to a complex problem, that being the high rate of road accident deaths.

They are calculated to appeal politically on several levels, promising 24/365 policing of speeding offences, allowing garda resources to be redeployed to other tasks and bringing in millions every year in extra revenue. To the politician, this has immediate appeal as it seems to tackle a major cause of road accidents, it means that extra gardai are not required and it pays for itself and millions more.

Where it breaks down though is that most accidents happen on rural roads where it isn't cost effective to put speed cameras(they don't catch as many speeders there and so motorways and dual carriageways are their preferred location), they can't be used to tackle drunk and dangerous driving, which are probably the causes of most deaths and the gardai that are excused from speed camera duty do not seem to be redeployed to tackling the real road accident risk behaviour, so leading to the perception, real or imagined that less gardai are on road duty and yet millions from speed cameras flow into the state coffers. So law enforcement becomes the responsibility of the machine not the gardai.

The government say that the speed cameras are to tackle road safety not raise revenue and the gardai say they can't mount speed checks on rural roads as it would be too dangerous. So a logical solution would be to put sensible speed limits on rural roads and then use speed cameras to enforce them, while the gardai enforce the road traffic laws where they can do so, on the motorways, dual carriageways and urban roads. The government should also look at placing cameras at junctions to catch drivers, who run red lights, a very dangerous practice and one for which cameras are ideally suited. But the decision on where to site cameras shouldn't depend on the forecast revenue, but rather on road accident reductions.

astraboy

Cyclopath trolling again. What a surprise. Interesting how he claims to want everyone to obey the law as "its the law" is basically his argument, with no questioning if the law is correct, or correctly applied.

This coming from a person who admits to disobeying the Gov publication of the rules of the road and not pulling over to the hard shoulder to allow faster drivers to overtake safetly. Of course he hates speeders, yet he see's no problem in pootling along well under the limit holding up 100's of cars behind him.

And as for his driving credentials, claiming that someone would put on his hazzards on Corks south link not to warn drivers of quickly slowing traffic, but to "pull over for a packet of fags" sums this guy up. His high horse antics are getting tiresome and take no account of what actually happens out on the road.

Of course, cyclopath is a cyclist and can routinely cycle on footpaths and break red lights with impunity. :rolleyes: I have yet to view another internet warrior with such a closed mind to overwhelming evidence and closed to others POV.

The speeding argument is done to death. The speed scameras are revenue generators and we will see them on the safest roads and dual carriageways with limits set too low. Sneaky Taxation is all this is.

How about more cops cruising the roads pulling those actually driving dangerously, instead of someone doing 125Kph on a motorway.......

E92

Nice sig astraboy:p!

What sickens me is that those lovely new dual carriageways that should be called Motorways but for some idotic reason the Government still hasn't gotten around to re-classifying these roads into Motorways are actually designed for not 120 but 160 km/h. Yet because they're not motorways you can only legally travel at 100 km/h on them(or 62.5% of the speed they are designed for, but given the way car speedos over-read that probabaly means we only ever go at 55% of their designed speed), even though it is perfectly legal for county councils to put 120 km/h limits on roads as they see fit even if they're not a Motorway:mad:!

Anyway the whole thing has been done so many times I'm really rather tired of this debate. I'm made my views perfectly clear on all the other threads that relate to this issue, so I don't see a need to do so again.

Btw, the speed cameras here have been delayed again AFAIK because of the cutbacks, sorry I mean adjustments:D!

astraboy

E92 wrote: »

Nice sig astraboy:p!

What sickens me is that those lovely new dual carriageways that should be called Motorways but for some idotic reason the Government still hasn't gotten around to re-classifying these roads into Motorways are actually designed for not 120 but 160 km/h. Yet because they're not motorways you can only legally travel at 100 km/h on them(or 62.5% of the speed they are designed for, but given the way car speedos over-read that probabaly means we only ever go at 55% of their designed speed), even though it is perfectly legal for county councils to put 120 km/h limits on roads as they see fit even if they're not a Motorway:mad:!

Anyway the whole thing has been done so many times I'm really rather tired of this debate. I'm made my views perfectly clear on all the other threads that relate to this issue, so I don't see a need to do so again.

Btw, the speed cameras here have been delayed again AFAIK because of the cutbacks, sorry I mean adjustments:D!

Prime example, Ballincollig bypass. I was on it during the week and its a motorway standard, yet has a 100kph limit. Of course the cops are regulary up on the bridge catching people doing 110-120, around the motorway limit. But its Cork, and the Gov have little interest in upgrading our infrastructure....

And yes, speed limits on motorways should be raised, and all those hogging the overtaking lane shot at dawn!

Anan1

I wouldn't have a problem with big orange speed cameras outside schools, in residential areas, etc. The idea should be to deter people from speeding rather than to catch them. For what it's worth, I think most people drive too fast in built-up areas and too slowly on open roads where visibility is good.

mcwhirter

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Sorry, but that does not make sense. They are ignorant, not innocent.

But certainly, new ideas should be considered. How about a system in the car that reminds the driver of the current speed limit?

Ignorant?

Remember this is a fine for exceeding a speed limit not shooting someone, often the cameras are in places that are setup to receive income rather then help the pedestriants and locals.
Where I live, cars and lorries speed through a 50km/h zone, yet a police camera checkpoint was setup just outside the town where there are no houses, just after the speed limit changes to 80km/h. He had his camera setup to aim a few metres within the 50km/h zone.
He was raking it in. The gardai knew this was a place where drivers begin to speed up even more after the 50km/h zone.
If they had setup the cameras on the 50km/h zone, in the town, drivers would probably spot it, slow down (therefore helping locals), and gardai would rake in less money. It's very simple. Yet this is the place where the locals want to have the camera as it makes the drivers slow down in the town, not outside it. It doesn't help anyone and just annoys everyone including people fined and the locals who have the speeders in their town.
They have been doing this for years in the UK and it doesn't work.
Why can we in Ireland not do it different? and not copy what the UK always does.

cyclopath2001

astraboy wrote: »

'Cyclopath trolling again'......Personal attacks.... provocation..... lies.... off-thread references....misquotes

Glad to know you're still with us, Astraboy.

As to the other more mature contributions, I think we must remember that people don't lose their licenses for just one lapse, but if they're regularly caught speeding on camera, there's something wrong with their attitude. I'd certainly consider a regime with lower or no fines, but where the points accumulate as they do now. But it's going too far to allow law-breakers to pass themselves off as innocent victims of a cynical tax-collection regime.

Denying that speed has anything to with with accidents is like saying sex has nothing to do with pregnancy.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

There's an awful lot of law-breaking going on. Honest citizens should be protected and law-breakers should be put off the roads. Cameras are useful tools which allow scarce Garda resources to be deployed more effectively.

Statements that cameras are 'revenue generators' are just propaganda from the law-breaking lobby of 'Ordinary Decent Speeders'. It's like criminals complaining about window locks making their job more difficult.

You are missing the point completely. Most people don't have a problem with speed cameras, they have a problem with where they are placed. The majority of them are placed on the safest roads in the country, i.e. motorways and dual-carriageways. This is pure revenue generation. Even the Gardaí have admitted to this at one of the AGSI conferences. Why are they not on the roads where the majority of fatal accidents occur?

I.S.T.

Stekelly wrote: »

I find it funny how people give out about speed cameras on motorways and dual carriageways. For a start these roads actually have speed limits, shock horror. But do peopel really think speed cameras and gards settign up speed traps on country roads would be safe?

That's what fixed cameras are for.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I'd certainly consider a regime with lower or no fines, but where the points accumulate as they do now.

I used to think that would be a good idea but have changed my mind on that. They would still stick the cameras in the roads with highest volume to increase detection rates. What should be done is that they identify a location where there is a high accident rate (consistant, not a spike), place a camera there, review the accident rate in 6 months or a year. If there is no improvement remove it.

knuth

What aggrovates me the most is that Dublin is generally the only county in Ireland to get shafted by the motoring laws.

Would you see Gardaí hiding behind bushes in the Donegal roads? Nope. Speed cameras on country back roads? LOL, noway. ...

Perhaps I've been ignorant but out of the 150+ road deaths on our roads this year, how many happened in Dublin? In the last 4 years, what did Dublins death toll equate to? I'd be pretty confident in saying under 10%.

It fascinates me how there are roads in the country, suitable for 1.5 cars with speed limits of 100km/h. Really, these guys are ****ing morons.

I also wonder if many of the people here have actually traveled on these said roads? I guarantee you would be shocked if you did.

mcwhirter

Yeah have to agree, the back roads here are very bad, I would say that bad signage and not enough warning of severe bend, humpback bridge etc could be a large cause of the crashes. I don't think a speed camera is going to help in this situation. It's just a fact of life in ireland that a lot of the routes are poor but to change them would be a massive undertaking.

Steve

mcwhirter wrote: »

Yeah have to agree, the back roads here are very bad, I would say that bad signage and not enough warning of severe bend, humpback bridge etc could be a large cause of the crashes. I don't think a speed camera is going to help in this situation. It's just a fact of life in ireland that a lot of the routes are poor but to change them would be a massive undertaking.

They wouldn't have to change the roads, just change speed limits in appropriate places.

Solution:
Put up a 30kmh limit on the bad bend or the humpback bridge.
Put a camera at the location set for 40kmh.
Put up lots of advance warning signs.
Sit back and watch the accident rate plummet.

I would applaud openly if 'they' were to use the cameras in this way - they won't though.

AntiVirus

SteveC wrote: »

They wouldn't have to change the roads, just change speed limits in appropriate places.

Solution:
Put up a 30kmh limit on the bad bend or the humpback bridge.
Put a camera at the location set for 40kmh.
Put up lots of advance warning signs.
Sit back and watch the accident rate plummet.

I would applaud openly if 'they' were to use the cameras in this way - they won't though.

Your absolutly right but lets face it, thats never going to happen. The accident rate would plummet but so would the fines.

Guy:Incognito

mcwhirter wrote: »

I wasn't on about cars slowing down. Yes I agree cars do drive too fast here through towns etc but is there not another way to prevent accidents rather than just fining people who of some are innocent especially when camera is hidden. How is that a prevention. It doesn't slow you down if you can not see the camera. You may be on a certain road only once a year and speed down it, get a fine, but you weren't prevented in slowing down in the first place.

How are you innocent just because the camera is hidden? If a Gard hides in an unmarked van outside a bank and grabs you as you come out after robbing it, are you innocent because he wasnt in a sqaud car?


After you get your first speeding fine and points in the post, the idea is you become more vigilant and keep to the limits. If not, they keep mountign up till your banned. No ones fault but your own.

2 points make liitle or no difference insurance wise, so that your warning.

mcwhirter wrote: »

There are a lot of people who are innocent when they have been caught exceeding the limit, sometimes they may not be aware of speed limit.

Not payign enough attention to notice speed signs does not equal innocence.

Chief Admiral wrote: »

at speeds below the posted limit, think junctions, narrow roads etc.
e.

I see noboday has commented on my post where , in the same news story that the OP comes from, tey said that fatal sccidents are down 30-60% in the areas with the speed cameras.

Marcus.Aurelius

Why hasn't cyclopath responded to my post? He just regurgitated more RSA nonsense.

I mean, is that the limit of your debating skills??

mcwhirter

Stekelly wrote: »

How are you innocent just because the camera is hidden? If a Gard hides in an unmarked van outside a bank and grabs you as you come out after robbing it, are you innocent because he wasnt in a sqaud car?


After you get your first speeding fine and points in the post, the idea is you become more vigilant and keep to the limits. If not, they keep mountign up till your banned. No ones fault but your own.

2 points make liitle or no difference insurance wise, so that your warning.





Not payign enough attention to notice speed signs does not equal innocence.




I see noboday has commented on my post where , in the same news story that the OP comes from, tey said that fatal sccidents are down 30-60% in the areas with the speed cameras.

Then why is the camera hidden then , it is to make money for the government and for no other reason, are you naive to think they give a crap about our safety. They only seem to care slightly to get votes.
No, money rules for them and it ain't going to change, well not in my lifetime.

Learn , learn and learn again from other countries mistakes PLEASE IRELAND, you are going to mess it up and there are going to be more deaths not less.

Guy:Incognito

mcwhirter wrote: »

Then why is the camera hidden then , it is to make money for the government and for no other reason, are you naive to think they give a crap about our safety. They only seem to care slightly to get votes.
No, money rules for them and it ain't going to change, well not in my lifetime.

.

None of that explains your "innocent" comment. Whether they are hidden, in plain view or the Gards following you waiting for you to break a speed limit, the fact remains you broke it of your own accord.

cyclopath2001

Chief Admiral wrote: »

Why hasn't cyclopath responded to my post? He just regurgitated more RSA nonsense.

Sorry, no discourtesy intended.

In my opinion, the limits we have are mostly sound, and I have some respect for the work of the RSA, who unlike us, are professionals. The people who disagree with them don't understand all of the circumstances that brought these limits into being. We've had reviews of the limits, the AA appealed some of them and were found to be wrong.

We should at least agree that people should obey laws even if they disagree with them.

Mikros

just on this topic and maybe to add something to the debate, a 4 year independent review of privatised speed cameras in the uk here gave the following results:

* Vehicle speeds were down - surveys showed that vehicle speeds at speed camera sites had dropped by around 6% following the introduction of cameras. At new sites, there was a 31% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. At fixed sites, there was a 70% reduction and at mobile sites there was a 18% reduction. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively (i.e. 15mph more than the speed limit) fell by 91% at fixed camera sites, and 36% at mobile camera sites.

* Both casualties and deaths were down - after allowing for the long-term trend, but without allowing for selection effects (such as regression-to-mean) there was a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites after cameras were introduced. Overall 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (32% fewer). There were 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,230 fewer personal injury collisions per annum in 2004. There was an association between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs.

* There was a positive cost-benefit of around 2.7:1. In the fourth year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £258million compared to enforcement costs of around £96million.

* The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement. This was evidenced by public attitude surveys, both locally and at a national level.

astraboy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Sorry, no discourtesy intended.

In my opinion, the limits we have are mostly sound, and I have some respect for the work of the RSA, who unlike us, are professionals. The people who disagree with them don't understand all of the circumstances that brought these limits into being. We've had reviews of the limits, the AA appealed some of them and were found to be wrong.

We should at least agree that people should obey laws even if they disagree with them.

A ha ha ha!?:eek:Gay Burne's credentials to lecture to us about speed are what exactly? And the fact you believe speed limits are mostly sound, pretty much means you have either travelled few of the roads in Ireland, or are delusional. Many limits are set too high, and many dual carriage ways are set too low. Far too low.

And I have spoken at length with my dad, an engineer with the NRA, about how limits are proposed. Many limits are set by the county council for development purposes, sorry to disappoint you but many of the 60kph limits have little to do with safety.

ANd if your going to preach, then at least obey the rules of the road and pull over to the hard shoulder when safe to do so to allow faster traffic to pass you(as you pootle along at 45kph no doubt). Its all well and good you preaching to us to "obey the law" when you disobey the ROTR yourself.:rolleyes:

The fact remains we will never change your opinion, and I doubt you will ever make a substantial or noteworthy contribution to this forum. Keep your closed minded opinions about speedlimits, yet ignore all the other requirements for better roads and infrastructure, better driver education, better training etc. Because its all about speed according to the "professionals" in the RSA......:rolleyes:

Finally, a point I have made again and again. If speed limits on motorways are so paramount to road safety and the safety of the innocents, then why are the accident rates on the autobans without speed limits exactly the same as those with speed limits? On the open roads let people choose their own speed and many people will watch the road, not their speedo, and drive better....

PS: lies and misquotes? Exactly what you are spouting then?:rolleyes:;)

Marcus.Aurelius

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Sorry, no discourtesy intended.

In my opinion, the limits we have are mostly sound, and I have some respect for the work of the RSA, who unlike us, are professionals. The people who disagree with them don't understand all of the circumstances that brought these limits into being. We've had reviews of the limits, the AA appealed some of them and were found to be wrong.

We should at least agree that people should obey laws even if they disagree with them.

You've got to be kidding me. If you want all your thinking done for you then arguing on boards.ie isn't your forte

You must acknowledge the fact that the speed limits are both arbitrary and unsafe in most cases and in other cases ridiculously low. If you cannot put a decent argument in place then I sincerely hope you have better things to do with your time.

The RSA are not professionals. IAM drivers are driving professionals. Gardaí are driving professionals. Even feckin taxi drivers are professionals.

Set up an RSA comprised of rank and file (Not officers!) Gardaí, IAM motorists and other professional drivers and you might see some intelligent discussion.

su_dios

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's a valid statement but it does not address all of the reasons why we have speed limits.

Society limits speed because:

1: It may be the root cause of an accident.

So is stepping into the car at the start of the journey. Just might not be your day! Stress, worry, something on your mind or just under the weather.

2: Combined with other elements it may lead to an accident.

So does a badly timed sneeze.

3: Even where it is no a causal factor, the amount of damage or injury (or likelihood of death) is usually directly proportional to the speed of the vehicle.

True. I think we've all seen the ad where the girl is knocked over at 50 and dies and then at 30 and lives.

4: Speed can cause congestion in busy areas.

If everyone followed a reasonable speed then you would get the opposite.

5: Noise.

It CAN get very annoying at night alright. I generally find the noisiest are the garda cars out on a call.(Besides the annoying tin can crowd)

6: Intimidation factor/degradation of quality of life in residential areas.

Nobody wants people speeding through their estate while their kids are playing by the side of the road.

Speeding is speeding end of the day, BUT different countries have different speeds for similar road situations. Theres even a big difference between speed limits in Galway and Dublin! So its hardly a crime then is it?..Unless of course dangerous driving comes in to play.

I would generally say that bad overtaking skills, lack of observation and people using their phone are more to blame for crashes than speeding.


I'm not aware of any thorough investigations into the causes of crashes in Ireland. Does anyone know of any that state the peek times of crashes, speeds involved or other offenses?
ie. would it be safe to assume a lot of crashes tend to involve young drivers, at high speeds in the morning hours? Always seems to be reported as such.

E92

Just to add to this thread that Sweden, the country that has a drink drive limit of 20 mg/l, speed cameras quite literally everywhere, and is widely considered to be one of the safest countries in the world to drive in has recently decided to raise the speed limit on their Motorways from 110 to 120 km/h as an experiment. They want to see what, if any difference it will make to road safety.

Now of course they're only raising it to our level, which isn't that fast but still a big improvement on 100, but it does put in perspective this constant nonsense about how slowing down will make such a difference.

If the Swedes think it's OK to even so much as experiment with raising speed limits then as they said in the Sunday Business Post toady "This should give pause to those Irish road safety people who can do no better than come up with slogans such as ‘‘Speed Kills’’. Having a road system as well engineered and drivers as well trained as those in Sweden is clearly better".

cyclopath2001

E92 wrote: »

Having a road system as well engineered and drivers as well trained as those in Sweden is clearly better".

Training is one thing, discipline is another. And, are we we really comparing like with like? I don't know much about Swedish drivers, but give many Irish drivers a 100 limit & they'll take 120.

Just this morning, I was stopped at traffic lights for some time, another driver came after a while and casually drove past me all the way over the stop line, stopping with the back wheels in the middle of the pedestrian crossing and the front blocking the cycle track that crossed the junction in front of us.

Do you really think training is the big problem?

Sweden has some heavy fines and rules for license loss based on the amount by which the limit is exceeded. So, maybe when they change the limit from 110 to 120, drivers change their speed from 110 to 120?

Discipline is the key.

TheNog

astraboy wrote: »

On the open roads let people choose their own speed and many people will watch the road, not their speedo, and drive better....

You cannot be seriously suggesting this? Have you ever seen a driver overtake in the face of oncoming traffic or do something else equally incompetent? And would you expect these drivers should be allowed to choose their speed.

knuth

TheNog wrote: »

You cannot be seriously suggesting this? Have you ever seen a driver overtake in the face of oncoming traffic or do something else equally incompetent? And would you expect these drivers should be allowed to choose their speed.

I witness this very rarely on the Dublin roads. Ironically, it is quite frequent in the majority of counties outside Dublin - the same counties that DO NOT encounter the same policing as Dublin.

Sandwich

TheNog wrote: »

You cannot be seriously suggesting this? Have you ever seen a driver overtake in the face of oncoming traffic or do something else equally incompetent? And would you expect these drivers should be allowed to choose their speed.

Id guess he is indeed proposing that. And would gain the full support of all motorists if such a strategy were to lead to safer roads.

To guess again though, there probably isnt any evidence to suggest that safety would improve with such a system, rather that it would disimprove.

The logic of those who wish to go faster than existing limits allows, or who go faster anyway but wish to justify their action and remove the threat of sanction, can be quite blinkered at times.