Speeding ticket on Naas Road

leon8v

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Source for this? I don't think you're reporting this statistic accurately. It may be that speed is only a causal factor in some accidents, but speed is always a factor in the amount of damage or injury.

By reducing vehicle speeds, we reduce the severity of damage and injury when a mistake is made.

At 40 mph, a pedestrian has an 80% likelihood of death. At 30mph, he has an 80% chance of survival.

Taken from RSA statistics, See here
http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/RSA_RCF_2006_v7.pdf?PHPSESSID=65368bf3c4ff12402b205c2f23d24974

See page 13, This refers to two vehicle collisions by the way, in Single vehicle crashes its 26% but it is not known how many of these are sucicide.

The whole "if we reduce speed we reduce severity" is something that gets rolled out a lot and I dont disagree with the theory behind it. But if a car was doing 30mph on a german autobahn for example and hit a pedestrian, yes it would be a lot better than if it was doing 130mph. But if a pedestrian was to run onto a train track of a high speed train they would also be killed, does that mean we should slow trains down as well???
With Speed comes responsibility, and that is where a lot of people fall down.

GreeBo

leon8v wrote: »

At the risk of continuing to go round in circles as eringobragh suggests, The idea is not to catch the most amount of drivers possible. Its to prevent road deaths, The two dont always go together!!!

The idea is to improve the driving standards of the most amount of drivers. Do that and the amount of road fatalities will decrease.

leon8v wrote: »

But how far do you take that,

You take it as far as the speed limits. Thats what they are for.

leon8v wrote: »

Autobahns Have no speed limit, it doesnt seem to be a major problem over there?

Slightly over 50% of the autobahns are limitless and thats changing all the time. An accident at 200kph is going to be a lot worse than one at 80kph.The guy doing 200 could be the best driver in the world but unless you are on the road by yourself that doesnt matter. Sure the statistics will blame the debris etc that "caused" they guy to crash, but his speed will cause the death of many others.

leon8v wrote: »

True there is a lot of hypothecticals and the point being made by me and others here is that the statistics suggest that the black spots is where the efforts should be concentrated.

and the point the rest of us are trying to make is that its the driver and not the roads that are dangerous. There are more opportunities to change drivers behaviours on main roads than there are on minor roads. If we had limitless resources then maybe we could do both.

We might just have to agree to disagree. I guess the bright side is that we most of us think speeding is wrong. What gets to me is the people who complain about getting caught for breaking the law and drum up the money making scheme excuse.

GreeBo

eringobragh wrote: »

*sigh* Your really not worth the effort.

:pac:

img snip:rolleyes:

And yet you went to the effort of posting twice, sourcing a picture, editing the second post and then deleting the first one?
Pity you didnt have time for a spell check amongst all that.

eringobragh wrote: »

Good lad, Keep it in between the ditches :rolleyes:

eringobragh wrote:

Your really not worth the effort.

eringobragh wrote: »

*sigh* Your really not worth the effort.
:pac:
[IMG]:rolleyes:[/img]

cyclopath2001

leon8v wrote: »

Taken from RSA statistics, See here
http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/RSA_RCF_2006_v7.pdf?PHPSESSID=65368bf3c4ff12402b205c2f23d24974

Yes, but it is far more precise than your carelessly worded quote.

leon8v wrote: »

does that mean we should slow trains down as well???

The reason rail safety is so good here is because it's highly regulated. Access to the tracks is mostly closed, speed and separation of vehicles is controlled, all changes of direction stricly controlled. Train drivers are closely monitored and those that break safety rules relating to speed or stoplights face severe penalties including loss of livelihood. Thus, we can allow trains to travel very quickly.

The roads, on the other hand, are chaotic & our lives are frequently in the hands of others. The results speak for themselves.

SV

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

At 40 mph, a pedestrian has an 80% likelihood of death. At 30mph, he has an 80% chance of survival.

Most popular made up statistic that exists.

cyclopath2001

Was watching the BBC, I think I got off 'Top Gear'....

The_Conductor

I'm a big subscriber to the same theory as someone earlier in the thread- on the dual carriageway/motorway- just set the cruise control to under the speed limit and take your time- you'll get there as fast as most other drivers, and save yourself a small fortune in fuel. There simply isn't any merit in putting the boot down- if you're paying sufficient attention to your driving, you'll arrive where-ever you're going shattered and not fit for your days work.....

It is amusing to see someone who tore past you on the M11 at Portlaoise still only 2 cars ahead at the Red Cow Roundabout......

Ps- I took the advanced driving test in my early 20s- as it was the only way I was going to get half reasonable insurance quotes- but I'd highly recommend it. I've no penalty points and a full NCB........

Arathorn

People are annoyed because the Guards appear to target easy areas where the speed limits just "feel" too low and unnatural while avoiding the blackspots and areas that would make a difference.

Yes if I go 38 MPH in a 30 MPH zone on a dual carriageway, yes technically its my own damn fault, but doesnt stop it feeling like a rape on my wallet

GreeBo

Arathorn wrote: »

People are annoyed because the Guards appear to target easy areas where the speed limits just "feel" too low and unnatural while avoiding the blackspots and areas that would make a difference.

People are annoyed because they get caught full stop. They try to make it someone elses fault by blaming the limit for being too low.

Arathorn wrote: »

Yes if I go 38 MPH in a 30 MPH zone on a dual carriageway, yes technically its my own damn fault, but doesnt stop it feeling like a rape on my wallet

How exactly does it feel like rape?
Thats like saying that getting fined for embezzlement is like rape on your wallet because there are people committing murder somewhere else and the police caught you.
You broke the law and got caught and punished. Case closed.

leon8v

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Yes, but it is far more precise than your carelessly worded quote.

.

Please explain how my quote was carelessly worded?? Does it or does it not say 12%, I am not sure of a more precise way of quoting "12%"


@greebo, I fully understand the point you are making, However, the flaw that I see in it, is that while you are trying to educate drivers on driving a bit slower, people are dying on other stretches of road. It is the slow approach and to be honest I am not convinced it will work long term anyway.
Would you be willing to explain to the families of people killed on narrower country roads that, well even though the car that crashed into their family member was within the posted speed limit but just lost control due to excessive speed for the particular conditions our resources were being used targetting the drivers on main roads to get them to slow down and we were hoping that issueing them with a fine for speeding on a motorway was going to teach him how to drive better on more demanding narrower roads??
As regards your comment on the autobahn and driving at 200mph, His speed will not be the cause of death of others, If someone was driving on the autobahn at 150mph and another car pulled out directly in his lane and casued him to rear end. What is the cause if that crash? Is it the guy doing 150mph or is it the idiot who didnt look in his mirror?? If you say well if he had only been doing 70mph then it wouldnt have been as bad a crash, then you are regulating for mistakes. The cause of the accident was not the speed but the guy who drove out in front. Just like the trains if someone walks onto the track of a high speed 200mph train and gets mowed down the cause of that is not the fact the train was going 200mph, the cause is the person walking onto the lines.
I am not advocating everyone should drive at 200mph everywhere but am rather saying that asking everyong to go at 30mph everywhere because there is a chance that someone might come across onto the wrongside of the road because they are drunk or asleep or hungover or just plain cant drive or someone might not be paying attention and walk out onto a motorway is not the solution.

For example, our current learner driver situation. As a learner driver you cannot drive on a motorway, you then go do you test on normal roads, pass, and walk out the door, suddenly you are now qualified to drive on a motorway yet you have no experience??? You have never been given any instruction or experience of what a car feels like at 120kph but you are now legally allowed to do it. Drivers in Dublin city may spend all of their learning hours in the city, go and pass their test and now they are expected to be able to drive on country roads in Donegal or Kerry or wherever, where road surfaces can suddenly change and blind corners are not signposted etc etc. madness!!!

cyclopath2001

leon8v wrote: »

Please explain how my quote was carelessly worded?? Does it or does it not say 12%, I am not sure of a more precise way of quoting "12%"

You did not state what the 12% related to. What you said was this:

leon8v wrote: »

It has been proven that speed is only a contributing factor in 12% of accidents.

This wording is careless because it does not accurately represent that the 12% figure that you are using to support your argument against speed limit enforcement only relates to the cause of accidents.

Speed contributes to the injury and damage that occurs in 100% of accidents.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Speed contributes to the injury and damage that occurs in 100% of accidents.

Injury happens in 100% of accidents? Since when?

And if by 'speed' you mean 'any form of motion' you're correct. If you mean 'speed over the speed limit, or that which the conditions allow if less', you'd be woefully wrong.

cyclopath2001

MYOB wrote: »

Injury happens in 100% of accidents? Since when?

I have not said that. But, I can see how you might have minsunderstood. Let me put it in a clearer way: "In 100% of accidents where injury or damage occurs, speed will be a factor of the severity of the injury or damage."

MYOB wrote: »

And if by 'speed' you mean 'any form of motion' you're correct.

Yes, that's my meaning.

We have speed limits not just to avert accidents but to mitigate the severity of an accident when one does occur, even if excessive speed is not the cause of the accident.

Traumadoc

Speed is not always a cause, I have seen cyclists that were killed cycling up the inside of left turning trucks for instance.

L1011

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I have not said that. But, I can see how you might have minsunderstood. Let me put it in a clearer way: "In 100% of accidents where injury or damage occurs, speed will be a factor of the severity of the injury or damage."

I see no other way to parse you original statement without clarificaiton such as that you've given = not misunderstood.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Yes, that's my meaning.

We have speed limits not just to avert accidents but to mitigate the severity of an accident when one does occur, even if excessive speed is not the cause of the accident.

So the only way to avoid accidents is to not move at all, then. Great.

Or do you advocate a 'man with a red flag' approach?

Traumadoc

I recently saw a man badly injured when a "cats eye" was thrown up by a truck travelling in the opposite direction hit the elderly man in the neck, broke hid jaw.

zod

I have to say imo that 60Kph on a 3 lane highway is an unreasonably slow speed..

similarily I think some speeds on rural roads are too high .. heres one I took a picture of




I think the locals were using the cones for breaking points to see if they could maintain the speed limit :eek:

leon8v

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I have not said that. But, I can see how you might have minsunderstood. Let me put it in a clearer way: "In 100% of accidents where injury or damage occurs, speed will be a factor of the severity of the injury or damage."
QUOTE]

You are stating the obvious here. If there is an accident at 120kph on a motorway of course there will be more damage that if it was at 20kph, so do you suggest that we drive everywhere at 20kph from now on??
Its a pretty ridiculous argument really.
The RSA have determined that of all the fatal two car accidents in 2006 Excessive speed was the cause in only 12% of them.
If a rugby player runs as fast as they can down the pitch and collides with an opposing player, is it going to hurt more than if he walked? of course, but he knows that beforehand.

Again as I said already if a car is travelling at 80kph in an 80kph zone and another car comes round a bend towards them on the wrong side of the road, the cause of that accident is the guy coming round on the wrong side of the road, not the fact the first car was doing 80kph. Of course if he was doing 20kph the impact would have been less severe, but the ACTUAL problem was the car on the wrong side of the road.
If you want everyone to drive really slow to lessen the severity of a potential accident then you are effectively saying, its ok to make as many mistakes as you want because everyone is going to drive slow enough to allow for it.
Maybe we should ground all planes too because the fact that they are in the air means that if they crash it will increase the damage rate, if they are on the ground it cant happen:rolleyes:

cyclopath2001

MYOB wrote: »

So the only way to avoid accidents is to not move at all, then. Great.

No, we get people to drive safely.

MYOB wrote: »

Or do you advocate a 'man with a red flag' approach?

Perhaps a straw man with a red flag?

GreeBo

zod wrote: »

I have to say imo that 60Kph on a 3 lane highway is an unreasonably slow speed..

similarily I think some speeds on rural roads are too high .. heres one I took a picture of




I think the locals were using the cones for breaking points to see if they could maintain the speed limit :eek:

Its a limit not a target. You dont have to drive at 80kph on this road. Do you expect a new signpost at every corner or are you able to judge the safe, legal speed yourself?

GreeBo

cyclopath wrote:

We have speed limits not just to avert accidents but to mitigate the severity of an accident when one does occur, even if excessive speed is not the cause of the accident.

MYOB wrote: »

So the only way to avoid accidents is to not move at all, then. Great.

Bit of a jump in your logic there. How does not driving at excessive speed mean being stationary? Just obey the limit. Its simple. Whats the problem with driving at the speedlimit?
If you choose to ignore the limit and get caught then pay up (cop on) and dont bitch about they type of road you were caught on.

L1011

GreeBo wrote: »

Bit of a jump in your logic there. How does not driving at excessive speed mean being stationary? Just obey the limit. Its simple. Whats the problem with driving at the speedlimit?
If you choose to ignore the limit and get caught then pay up (cop on) and dont bitch about they type of road you were caught on.

I asked that if by speed, he meant any motion at all. He responded with "yes, thats my meaning".

No jump.

GreeBo

leon8v wrote: »

@greebo, I fully understand the point you are making, However, the flaw that I see in it, is that while you are trying to educate drivers on driving a bit slower, people are dying on other stretches of road. It is the slow approach and to be honest I am not convinced it will work long term anyway.

I seriouldy dont see that its slower than putting vans on minor roads. Just look at the sheer number of minor roads compared to major roads. Again, we are hampered by fixed, minmal resources.

leon8v wrote: »

Would you be willing to explain to the families of people killed on narrower country roads that, well even though the car that crashed into their family member was within the posted speed limit but just lost control due to excessive speed for the particular conditions our resources were being used targetting the drivers on main roads to get them to slow down and we were hoping that issueing them with a fine for speeding on a motorway was going to teach him how to drive better on more demanding narrower roads??

I never said we trying to teach them how to drive? We are getting speeders to change their behaviour so that they *at least* obey the posted limit.
Likewise would you be willing to explain to the families of people killed in multicar, high speed motorway crashes that all the police were on the minor roads where they caught 4 speeders so far this week?

leon8v wrote: »

As regards your comment on the autobahn and driving at 200mph, His speed will not be the cause of death of others, If someone was driving on the autobahn at 150mph and another car pulled out directly in his lane and casued him to rear end. What is the cause if that crash? Is it the guy doing 150mph or is it the idiot who didnt look in his mirror?? If you say well if he had only been doing 70mph then it wouldnt have been as bad a crash, then you are regulating for mistakes. The cause of the accident was not the speed but the guy who drove out in front.

The guy who pulled out caused the accident. The guy driving at 200mph caused the accident to be much worse than it would otherwise have been. Seriously, you cannot be arguing aginst the fact that speed makes *every* accident worse?
RE the bolded section. Of course thats what we are doing! Thats what limits are for. What do you think the point of speed limits are if its not for safety?

leon8v wrote: »

I am not advocating everyone should drive at 200mph everywhere but am rather saying that asking everyong to go at 30mph everywhere because there is a chance that someone might come across onto the wrongside of the road because they are drunk or asleep or hungover or just plain cant drive or someone might not be paying attention and walk out onto a motorway is not the solution.

Thats why different types of roads have different speed limits? REsidential versus motorway for example. The limits are based on the likelyhood of something going wrong.

leon8v wrote: »

For example, our current learner driver situation. As a learner driver you cannot drive on a motorway, you then go do you test on normal roads, pass, and walk out the door, suddenly you are now qualified to drive on a motorway yet you have no experience??? You have never been given any instruction or experience of what a car feels like at 120kph but you are now legally allowed to do it. Drivers in Dublin city may spend all of their learning hours in the city, go and pass their test and now they are expected to be able to drive on country roads in Donegal or Kerry or wherever, where road surfaces can suddenly change and blind corners are not signposted etc etc. madness!!!

You wont get any argument from me about the driving "test". But by your logic, this crap driver will only get shown that speeding is wrong and dangerous when he meets the gatso van on that minor road. By my method he will have been dealing with them everyday and will have been conditioned that speeding is retarted.

leon8v

GreeBo wrote: »

I seriouldy dont see that its slower than putting vans on minor roads. Just look at the sheer number of minor roads compared to major roads. Again, we are hampered by fixed, minmal resources..

We could be debating this for the next year!!!
It is slower. As pointed out earlier, speeding has only been attributed as the main cause in a low percentage of accidents. You can argue that if they had only been doing 10mph then it wouldnt have been as bad but the facts are the facts. What I am saying is that by placing a Gatso van on a main road you are trying to get people that may or may not drive on back roads to wipe out a problem that isnt the main cause of accidents.

GreeBo wrote: »

I never said we trying to teach them how to drive? We are getting speeders to change their behaviour so that they *at least* obey the posted limit.
Likewise would you be willing to explain to the families of people killed in multicar, high speed motorway crashes that all the police were on the minor roads where they caught 4 speeders so far this week?..

But people are been killed a lot more often on minor roads than they are in multicar car motorway pileups. When was the last time we had a major motorway pileup in Ireland? If memory serves me right it was when there was bad fog on the M7?? Would a gatso van parked on the side of it had made a blond bit of difference? NO!!
I am not an expert in the area but any program I have watched on motorway accidents in the UK hasnt put it down to breaking the posted speed limit but down to not leaving enough space to stop, no warnings of stationary traffic ahead, etc etc, all a gatso van will do there is get a picture of the whole thing!!!!

GreeBo wrote: »

The guy who pulled out caused the accident. The guy driving at 200mph caused the accident to be much worse than it would otherwise have been. Seriously, you cannot be arguing aginst the fact that speed makes *every* accident worse?

Again, as I already stated, plane crashes are worse because the plane is in the air, so do we stop them from flying? No, we try make it as safe as possible to do so.

GreeBo wrote: »

RE the bolded section. Of course thats what we are doing! Thats what limits are for. What do you think the point of speed limits are if its not for safety?

You are missing the point of what I ama sasying, It was that limited resources should be used to eliminate the mistakes, not get everyone to slow to a crawl pace to accomodate them.

GreeBo wrote: »

You wont get any argument from me about the driving "test". But by your logic, this crap driver will only get shown that speeding is wrong and dangerous when he meets the gatso van on that minor road. By my method he will have been dealing with them everyday and will have been conditioned that speeding is retarted.

Who said anything about speeding, I said the city driver has no experience driving on country roads, The learner driver no experience at 120kph (thats not above the limit!) Too many people seem to have an obsession with speeding in this country.
I never suggested only a gatso on backroads. What I suggested was resources. I accept that there are a hell of a lot more minor roads than main roads but I dont think thats a good enough reason. There are a lot more drug trafficers than the Garda can ever deal with but it doesnt stop them trying!!!
The limited resources they have should be spent tackling the main problems, From that RSA report, it says coming over to the wrong side of the road was a big problem, I am sure there is more research which goes into more detail on it so try tackle that.
As I said already, speeding isnt the major issue that the media and that fool Gaybo tell us it is, yet all the efforts are concentrated on it. Lets say we get everyone to drive within the speed limit everywhere, then according to the RSA statistics you are only going to eliminate 12% of accidents. Now while any saving is worthwhile, is it enough? Most definitely not, if they tackled some of the other areas they could eliminate a much higher percentage and get a better return.

fineass66

i was driving between Cahir and Cashel and a van passed out 2 lorries and 2 cars just passing rockwell collage , which is on a bent . i phoned the guards with the name on the van and the number and was told , we have no cars available and did i know that i would have to come in and make a statement . i said no prob i will be there in 5 min but the guard told me he was to busy to do it now ,just couldnt be bothered as far as i could see .Just wondering what THE NOG thinks about this, has he got an excuse for this too.....

I.S.T.

GreeBo wrote: »

Its a limit not a target. You dont have to drive at 80kph on this road. Do you expect a new signpost at every corner or are you able to judge the safe, legal speed yourself?

Have a look at this video I took of a road with a 80kmh limit. The entire road is as appears in the video, none of it is suitable for 40kmh, nevermind 80kmh. Why do roads such as this have such a high limit? Check out that tractor near the end, if I was doing 80kmh I would be dead..

GreeBo

MYOB wrote: »

I asked that if by speed, he meant any motion at all. He responded with "yes, thats my meaning".

No jump.

I wasnt talking about the post before...
You said

MYOB wrote:

So the only way to avoid accidents is to not move at all, then. Great.

Which is nothing like what cyclopath said.

cyclopath wrote:

We have speed limits not just to avert accidents but to mitigate the severity of an accident when one does occur, even if excessive speed is not the cause of the accident.

A limit does not mean zero, its a boundary you dont go beyond.

L1011

GreeBo wrote: »

Which is nothing like what cyclopath said.

No, its exactly like what he said. Learn to read.

I.S.T.

GreeBo wrote: »

How is concentrating on the rural roads going to stop you speeding?

The objective is to stop crashes, don't you agree? So why would you agrue against concentrating efforts where 73% of fatal crashes occur which is the rural roads?

GreeBo wrote: »

And how exactly do fixed cameras prevent speeding when some genius has them all plotted out here :rolleyes:

Because they cause people to slow down at accident black spots which is where they should only be placed.

GreeBo wrote: »

Accidents will *always* happen. The faster you go the worse the accident. Fact.

So drive everywhere at 10kmh if you feel like that

GreeBo wrote: »

Same question right back at you. Whats the purpose of www.irishspeedtraps.com, to stop people speeding or getting caught?

It's quite simple, if there is an area where a lot of crashes are occuring and it is determined they are caused by speed, put a speed camera there. The notify people about it's existance. People slow down, crash rate decreases, objective to reduce crash rate achieved. The RSA and Gardaí have no problem with our site publishing the locations, they have stated this publicily. They also plan to do the same themselves once the new fixed cameras are installed next year.

zod

GreeBo wrote: »

Its a limit not a target. You dont have to drive at 80kph on this road. Do you expect a new signpost at every corner or are you able to judge the safe, legal speed yourself?

stop stating the obvious as if it somehow backs up your argument.

How low a speed limit would you have to see on the parts of the N7 before you would say "Well thats just silly, surely the road department got that wrong ?" 40kph, 30kph .. 10kph???,

People should be able to give an honest critism of laws without this immediate counter "if your not with us your against us, won't somebody please think of the children" dogma.