Road safety 'made worse by speed cameras'

cyclopath2001

MrPudding wrote: »

Good idea. It would be nice to see all those law braking cyclists getting what they deserve.MrP

(Law-braking?) Indeed cyclists do brake so as not to break the law.

But to address your intended sentiment, it will be a small price to pay if it means we will no longer have to put up with arrogant law-breaking motoring.

corktina

slight difference between cyclists and motorists where law breaking is concerned. in both cases its usually the cyclist comes off worse. in any case cyclists rarely exceed speed limits and as they dont really cause traffic hold ups to any great degree, i dont really see it matters if they treat the laws with a pinch of salt sometimes.

MrPudding

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

(Law-braking?) Indeed cyclists do brake so as not to break the law.

Oops.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

But to address your intended sentiment, it will be a small price to pay if it means we will no longer have to put up with arrogant law-breaking motoring.

I love it when you claim other people are arrogant. It is so... hypocritical.

corktina wrote: »

slight difference between cyclists and motorists where law breaking is concerned.

Either the law is the law or it isn't. The sentiment here is that the laws should be enforced. Personally I have no problems with laws being enforced, even speeding laws, believe it or not. What I don't like is a particular section of the public being demonised. Enforece the laws, but enforce them fairly and evenly. The law should not care about the difference between motorist and cyclist.

corktina wrote: »

in both cases its usually the cyclist comes off worse.

That isn't really relevent though, is it.

corktina wrote: »

in any case cyclists rarely exceed speed limits and as they dont really cause traffic hold ups to any great degree, i dont really see it matters if they treat the laws with a pinch of salt sometimes.

See, this is where I have the issue. You are happy to say because they rarely exceed the speed limit and they don't cause congestion it is ok for them to take the laws with a pinch of salt. Drivers doing 70kph on the N11 near Avoca Hand Weavers don't hold up traffic. They don't cause many accidents either. Why can they not take that speed limit with a pinch of salt?

MrP

corktina

obviously because if they hit someone at 70k they are going to kill them....anyone a cyclist hits is likely to be somewhat less killed:D

I dont say they are above the law, just that it isnt worth persuing them...theres nothing to be gained by it

MrPudding

corktina wrote: »

obviously because if they hit someone at 70k they are going to kill them....anyone a cyclist hits is likely to be somewhat less killed:D

I dont say they are above the law, just that it isnt worth persuing them...theres nothing to be gained by it

Please tell me this is not you argument? Though I don’t have the figures I would doubt there would be much difference in the damage or injury between a car doing 60kph and 70kph. If the car hits someone they are going to die. So what is to be gained by pursuing them?

MrP

corktina

Persuing an erring CYCLIST....:rolleyes:

thebman

corktina wrote: »

if it is indeed the intention to generate revenue, it is not for "them" it is for us.Far better that law-breakers who get caught pay tax instead of the law-obeyers isnt it?

My view? stick to the limits and if you cant and get caught, you are a criminal and have nothing to complain about...they didnt get me yet obviously.

What an incredibly dangerous view of the world you have.

Please don't ever hold a position of power.

So it doesn't matter if the law is working as long as it generates revenue and you don't get caught? Lets reduce all speed limits to 10KM/H. Think of the revenue we'll generate :eek:

markpb

MrPudding wrote: »

I would doubt there would be much difference in the damage or injury between a car doing 60kph and 70kph. If the car hits someone they are going to die. So what is to be gained by pursuing them?

Unfortunately you're wrong...

Nevertheless, a strong dependence on impact speed is found, with the fatality risk at 50 km/h being more than twice as high as the risk at 40 km/h and more than five times higher than the risk at 30 km/h.

link

Edit: You're also resorting to reductum ad absurdia by suggesting that if someone kills someone with a car, it's not worth pursuing them. Interesting suggestion

MrPudding

markpb wrote: »

Unfortunately you're wrong...



link

Edit: You're also resorting to reductum ad absurdia by suggesting that if someone kills someone with a car, it's not worth pursuing them. Interesting suggestion

My post was in response to someone else making a pretty stupid comment. He suggested as because it was unlike for anyone to be hurt by a speeding cyclist and that they were like to be worse off in an incident, that they should be allowed to break laws.

All I was pointing out was there is little difference in survivability between 60 & 70, so why bother pursuing people for that little increase in speed.

I never suggested that someone should not be pursued for killing someone. Simply, why bother pursuing someone for simply breaking the speed limit by a reasonably small amount when if they hot someone when they were actually doing the speed limit it would still be fatal.

Lets not get our knickers in a twist here. I am not for one minute suggesting that we should let people off when they have killed someone.

I simply object to people thinking cyclists should be let off with breaking the rules of the road because they are less likely to kill someone and if they are involved in an incident they are likely to be worse off.

I am all for the rules of the road being enforced. I would personally prefer it to be done in a way that also increases road safety.

MrP

corktina

i thought personal insults were banned on here....

SeanW

attack the post, not the poster.

e.g. "This post is nonsense" is ok while
"This poster sucks and is an idiot" is not.

thebman

MrPudding wrote: »

All I was pointing out was there is little difference in survivability between 60 & 70, so why bother pursuing people for that little increase in speed.

Exactly, once your going over 50KM/H and even then there is an assumption you will get on the brakes before collision and reduce the speed from 50 in a lot of accident tests.

I simply object to people thinking cyclists should be let off with breaking the rules of the road because they are less likely to kill someone and if they are involved in an incident they are likely to be worse off.

I am all for the rules of the road being enforced. I would personally prefer it to be done in a way that also increases road safety.

MrP

Agree, a cyclist can break a red light and cause a car/bus/truck to swerve to avoid them that is going under the limit and hit a pedestrian in which case massive injuries can occur. The assumption that because it is a lower speed and bikes are small that it is fine to ignore laws is ridiculous.

Laws need to be sensible and thought out and should be questioned if they appear to not be achieving their goal of increased safety and fewer accidents.

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote: »

Either the law is the law or it isn't. The sentiment here is that the laws should be enforced. Personally I have no problems with laws being enforced, even speeding laws, believe it or not. What I don't like is a particular section of the public being demonised. Enforece the laws, but enforce them fairly and evenly. The law should not care about the difference between motorist and cyclist.

Im confused. You say the law shouldnt care if the law breaker is a motorist or a cyclist, yet you think the law should care if the speed limit is being broken on an accident prone road versus a motorway?
A cyclist is going to cause far less (severe) accidents than a motorist, so your statement would appear to contradict itself.

cyclopath2001

thebman wrote: »

Laws need to be sensible and thought out and should be questioned if they appear to not be achieving their goal of increased safety and fewer accidents.

Question them by all means, but don't break them.

corktina

its a question of priorities...is it worth pursueing a cyclist for an infringement? what is there to be gained by it? resources are better used to keep car infringements in check where a life might be saved.

MrPudding

corktina wrote: »

i thought personal insults were banned on here....

Is that addressed to me? I don't believe I made a personal insult.

GreeBo wrote: »

Im confused. You say the law shouldnt care if the law breaker is a motorist or a cyclist, yet you think the law should care if the speed limit is being broken on an accident prone road versus a motorway?

Have you read the thread? I know it is getting slighly off topic here, but I thought I was being reasonably clear. The last few posts from me have been in response to other posts and aren't really related to the main point.

My original point was that I would prefer to see enforcement in areas that were prone to accidents and this would have a greater impact on road deaths and injuries. I would have thought this was quite obvious.

Someone else said that they believe we should not bother enforcing laws on cyclists. I personally think this is unfair and does not give the right impression. Someone going slightly over the limit on a safe road is not much more dangerous as someone travelling at the speed limit on the same road, please note I am not talking about limits in built up areas I think they should be viciously enforced, I am talking about safe motorways and dual carriage ways etc. I reckon the increase in risk for a small speed infraction on a safe road is not that great, possibly even comparable to the risk when a cyclist breaks one of the rules of the road.

GreeBo wrote: »

A cyclist is going to cause far less (severe) accidents than a motorist, so your statement would appear to contradict itself.

So what? Are they breaking the law or not?

I am not for a speed free for all. I simply hate it when people that go a little over the speed limit are made out to be public enemy number 1.

The figures don't even back it up. It is like that link I refered to earlier. "The safe speed" was exceeded. The "safe speed" for any given area or situation could be well under the legal limit.

I find it intensly irritating that the government continually try to tell us they are doing their bit for road safety by catching speeders on the N11 or the M1. People are dying on the back roads that never see a speed check or a GATSO camera.

The cameras are hidden so the punishemnt is handed out after the "crime." Would it not be better if the camera slowed the people down before the dangerous but?

Would it not be better if the speed limits were actually set a sensible limits? Personally I think the limits on motorways could be increased with little or no increase in risk. I like the French system, 130 in the dry and 110 in the wet.

I think more limits need to be revised down. Rather than blanket speed limits that do little for safety and lots for frustration, I think they should be more granular. Have a decent speed on a road but drop the limit where the road becomes a bit twisty or there are historically more incidents. Force drivers to slow down in these areas by placing highly visible cameras so drivers do actually slow down right then.

Pulling people on the N11 and the M1 and similar roads is great for soundbites, but does not really help things. The young lads on the back roads in Donegal are not in the least bit bother by a speed check on the N11 or the M1. The only thing that will make them slow down is wrapping themselves round a tree or proper education and enforcement.

MrP

MrPudding

corktina wrote: »

its a question of priorities...is it worth pursueing a cyclist for an infringement? what is there to be gained by it? resources are better used to keep car infringements in check where a life might be saved.

Yes, it is a matter of priorities. And I would argue that pursuing a driver for going 10kph over the limit on the M1 does about as much for road safety and pursuing cyclists for their various infringements.

MrP

cyclopath2001

MrPudding wrote: »

I am talking about safe motorways and dual carriage ways etc. I reckon the increase in risk for a small speed infraction on a safe road is not that great, possibly even comparable to the risk when a cyclist breaks one of the rules of the road.

Thin end of the wedge and goalpost shifting by the pro-speeding lobby.

MrPudding wrote: »

So what? Are they breaking the law or not? I am not for a speed free for all. I simply hate it when people that go a little over the speed limit are made out to be public enemy number 1.

They are breaking the law, but nobody is making them public enemy number 1. This is just a gross exaggeration. They get fined and they get points. It's just a slap on the wrist. Only if they ignore the law repeatedly do they lose their licences. Even then, many law-breakers evade detection, thans to the efforts of 'IrishSpeedTraps', the speeders friend.

MrPudding wrote: »

I find it intensly irritating that the government continually try to tell us they are doing their bit for road safety by catching speeders on the N11 or the M1. People are dying on the back roads that never see a speed check or a GATSO camera.

What a pity that 'IrishSpeedTraps' does not document these blackspots with the same attention to detail as it documents speed traps.

MrPudding wrote: »

The cameras are hidden so the punishemnt is handed out after the "crime." Would it not be better if the camera slowed the people down before the dangerous but?

Would it not be better if people just assumed that there was a speed camera behind all speed limit signs? It would save us a lot of money on cameras.

MrPudding wrote: »

Would it not be better if the speed limits were actually set a sensible limits? Personally I think the limits on motorways could be increased with little or no increase in risk. I like the French system, 130 in the dry and 110 in the wet.

Then, Irish drivers would just break the new limit.

MrPudding wrote: »

Pulling people on the N11 and the M1 and similar roads is great for soundbites, but does not really help things.

The authorities put up speed limit signs, people ignore them. Lets' not try to make them look like victims.

Tragedy

Saw my first ever gatso van today. 00:30 AM, about half a mile outside of borris-on-ossory(and for those unfamiliar with the section, it's about a mile of straight 100km/h National route sloping downhill to the town, with the gatso van catching people going over the limit as they go downhill).
Saw lights far up in the distance, figured it was a car up ahead. Slowly got closer and realised a van was pulled in on the hard shoulder. Got close and saw the the camera in the back window.(van was unmarked)

That's a perfectly straight 1mile stretch of road, with not a single exit/turn off, wide lanes and hard shoulder.

It isn't an accident hotspot, there's nothing remotely dangerous about it, and I'd be surprised if there had ever been any kind of traffic incident there as a result of speeding.

They just wanted to catch people late at night who crept over the speed limit going down a hill on a straight stretch of road.

Especially since it was unmarked and when people get the points in the post however many weeks later, they wont have a clue why for and wont learn a thing.

(I was doing 95 btw )

MrPudding

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Thin end of the wedge and goalpost shifting by the pro-speeding lobby.

No goalpost shifting on my part, but then I am not part of the pro-speeding lobby. I love the thin end of the wedge argument. It sounds so….. dangerous. End of society as we know it?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

They are breaking the law, but nobody is making them public enemy number 1. This is just a gross exaggeration.

It is not a gross exaggeration. The government insists on saying that speeders are the number one cause of deaths on Irish roads when even their own figures don’t support the assertions.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

They get fined and they get points. It's just a slap on the wrist. Only if they ignore the law repeatedly do they lose their licences.

Yes, not such a big deal. But can you not see how doing exactly the same thing, except in a place where excessive speed is actually dangerous would have a better effect on road safety?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Even then, many law-breakers evade detection, thans to the efforts of 'IrishSpeedTraps', the speeders friend.

I don’t know how successful that particular website is, but I would imagine it does not make that much of an impact.

In France all the fixed camera location are available on a website. They even take out ads in local papers to alert people to upcoming mobile checks, and they still raise millions. I think perhaps you may underestimate peoples lazyness when it come to finding out this information.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

What a pity that 'IrishSpeedTraps' does not document these blackspots with the same attention to detail as it documents speed traps.

Well, perhaps if his website was called “IrishAccidentBlackspots” he would. If only there was some organisation that collected that kind of information, some kind of authority on accidents and safety on the roads.. Perhaps a “Road Accident Authority?” No, that sounds a bit too negative, it should focus on safety. An authority in Ireland that would be responsible for roads safety and perhaps collating information on accident blackspots so the other authorities could target those areas in an effort to reduce road deaths. Oh, oh, I know. We could call it the “Road Safety Authority.” Does anyone have the email address for the minister of transport? I think this idea might just be crazy enough to work…

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Would it not be better if people just assumed that there was a speed camera behind all speed limit signs? It would save us a lot of money on cameras.

Come now, don’t tell me you think that live aren’t worth the cost of a bunch of gatso cameras?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Then, Irish drivers would just break the new limit.

I am sure some of them would. I think the fundamental problem here between us is that unlike you, I simply don’t think that every single speeding transgression needs to be punished. I think dangerous speeding should be, but then I would consider that to be dangerous driving. I think that limits in built up areas should be enforced, which I have said all along.
I just don’t think someone going a few kph over the limit on a safe road is worth pursuing, unless the intention is not simply road safety.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The authorities put up speed limit signs, people ignore them. Lets' not try to make them look like victims.

I am not trying to make anyone look like a victim. I appreciate that they have broken the law. But lets try not to make the government anti speeding campaign look like it is all about road safety.

If it was simply about reducing road deaths and injuries it would be done differently, that is really the only point I am trying to make.

MrP

corktina

road safety authority is a good idea...we could get some washed up tv host to front it up!





pat kenny!

GreeBo

MrPudding wrote: »

I am talking about safe motorways and dual carriage ways etc. I reckon the increase in risk for a small speed infraction on a safe road is not that great, possibly even comparable to the risk when a cyclist breaks one of the rules of the road.

<snip>

So what? Are they breaking the law or not?

But again, those two sentences seem to contradict each other.
Either everyone has to obey the law (regardless of the road and how safe or unsafe *you* think it is. Thats the whole point of having a speed limit, so that everyone is on the same page. If you have a problem with specific speed limits then bring it up to the relevant authority, dont just decide to ignore it. Thats anarchy.

Tragedy

Tragedy wrote: »

Saw my first ever gatso van today. 00:30 AM, about half a mile outside of borris-on-ossory(and for those unfamiliar with the section, it's about a mile of straight 100km/h National route sloping downhill to the town, with the gatso van catching people going over the limit as they go downhill).
Saw lights far up in the distance, figured it was a car up ahead. Slowly got closer and realised a van was pulled in on the hard shoulder. Got close and saw the the camera in the back window.(van was unmarked)

That's a perfectly straight 1mile stretch of road, with not a single exit/turn off, wide lanes and hard shoulder.

It isn't an accident hotspot, there's nothing remotely dangerous about it, and I'd be surprised if there had ever been any kind of traffic incident there as a result of speeding.

They just wanted to catch people late at night who crept over the speed limit going down a hill on a straight stretch of road.

Especially since it was unmarked and when people get the points in the post however many weeks later, they wont have a clue why for and wont learn a thing.

(I was doing 95 btw )

A classic example of revenue raising/statistical propaganda while doing nothing to address real road safety issues, a motorist could be drunk and cause a crash further down the road but will not get stopped here!

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Even then, many law-breakers evade detection, thans to the efforts of 'IrishSpeedTraps', the speeders friend.

Will you please answer this question then. Do you think the RSA are also the "speeders friend" given that they said they will publish the locations of the 300 new fixed cameras on their website? Do you also agree that garda.ie is also the "speeders friend" as they plan to do the same?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

What a pity that 'IrishSpeedTraps' does not document these blackspots with the same attention to detail as it documents speed traps.

That is the job of the RSA.

MrPudding

GreeBo wrote: »

But again, those two sentences seem to contradict each other.
Either everyone has to obey the law (regardless of the road and how safe or unsafe *you* think it is. Thats the whole point of having a speed limit, so that everyone is on the same page. If you have a problem with specific speed limits then bring it up to the relevant authority, dont just decide to ignore it. Thats anarchy.

I will try once more. I am not saying speeding should be made legal. I am also not saying that the law breaking should be ignored. All I am saying is that in a situation where the enforcement resources, like personnel or technology, is limited those resources that are available would be better used enforcing infringements that would have the best positive effect on road safety.

You say that using traffic corp resources to crack down on cyclists would not do much for road safety. I agree. It won’t, it will use resources that would be better used elsewhere. I also happen to think that cracking down on speeding, simply because it is speeding is also not necessarily the best use of resources.

MrP

cyclopath2001

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Will you please answer this question then. Do you think the RSA are also the "speeders friend" given that they said they will publish the locations of the 300 new fixed cameras on their website? Do you also agree that garda.ie is also the "speeders friend" as they plan to do the same?

You're not comparing like with like. The RSA and the Gardai compliment the information with road-safety advice. Do they provide easy-to use downloadable files for GPS devices?

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

That is the job of the RSA.

It's up to IrishSpeedTraps to backup its claims, not the RSA.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. 'IrishSpeedTraps' merely pretends to be interested in road safety, it does not back up its claims with evidence.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You're not comparing like with like. The RSA and the Gardai compliment the information with road-safety advice. Do they provide easy-to use downloadable files for GPS devices?

It's up to IrishSpeedTraps to backup its claims, not the RSA.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. 'IrishSpeedTraps' merely pretends to be interested in road safety, it does not back up its claims with evidence.

Ok chief, whatever you believe. You are so anti-motorist, why do you hang around this forum so much?

corktina

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Ok chief, whatever you believe. You are so anti-motorist, why do you hang around this forum so much?

because its a Commuting and Transport forum , not a motoring one I would guess...

I.S.T.

corktina wrote: »

because its a Commuting and Transport forum , not a motoring one I would guess...

oops, my mistake. He is always in motors forum though.

corktina

How bold of him....:cool: