Speed camera mega-thread ***Read first post before posting***

Iwannahurl

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Your last paragraph is ridiculous. Does not make one ounce of an ounce of sense.

Sorry, left out a crucial bit of 'punctuation': :rolleyes:

-Chris-

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

how do u ban your own moderators???

You're only a moderator in your own forum, everywhere else you're a regular user.

Also, I wasn't specifically warning homer_simpson, that warning was for the benefit of everyone.... :cool:

Iwannahurl

-Chris- wrote: »

You're only a moderator in your own forum, everywhere else you're a regular user.

Also, I wasn't specifically warning homer_simpson, that warning was for the benefit of everyone.... :cool:

General response, if that's allowed.

Thanks for clarifying position re Moderators' contributions to various threads. I had wondered why some Mods' postings were occasionally indistinguishable from the generality. I had assumed (naively?) that Mods would always be 'moderating'.

AugustusMinimus

Why are they using vans to survey where most speed limits are broken when they have said time and time again, their intention is to place speed cameras where most of the accident happen ?

Where speed limits are broken does not equal where accident happen.

In fact, I'd imagine that in the vast majority of cases, speed limits are broken on motorways where hardly any accident happen.

-Chris-

Iwannahurl wrote: »

General response, if that's allowed.

Thanks for clarifying position re Moderators' contributions to various threads. I had wondered why some Mods' postings were occasionally indistinguishable from the generality. I had assumed (naively?) that Mods would always be 'moderating'.

Yep, you're a regular user everywhere else and can (and do) get infracted/banned in other forums.

Some of us have also taken up the convention that we post in bold when issuing mod requests so that we have the ability to post in our own forum as a regular user too (non-bold).

Anyhoo - enough of the tangent, let's get back on topic

-Chris-

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Why are they using vans to survey where most speed limits are broken when they have said time and time again, their intention is to place speed cameras where most of the accident happen ?

Where speed limits are broken does not equal where accident happen.

In fact, I'd imagine that in the vast majority of cases, speed limits are broken on motorways where hardly any accident happen.

I believe they actually said they'd be positioning the vans based on where the most accidents happen due to inappropriate speed.

It's an important distinction imho.

Iwannahurl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Why are they using vans to survey where most speed limits are broken when they have said time and time again, their intention is to place speed cameras where most of the accident happen ?

Where speed limits are broken does not equal where accident happen.

In fact, I'd imagine that in the vast majority of cases, speed limits are broken on motorways where hardly any accident happen.

Old chestnuts roasting on an open fire...

BTW, is it too early to say (tangentially) Happy Christmas?

AugustusMinimus

-Chris- wrote: »

I believe they actually said they'd be positioning the vans based on where the most accidents happen due to inappropriate speed.

It's an important distinction imho.

Using vans to detect the average speed of cars on a stretch of road will not determine the reason for crashes happening on a stretch of road though.

You could have a road where people drive 10mph over the limit and have had two deaths caused by wreckless overtaking.

The only way to determine these locations in my mind is to take it on a crash by crash basis and determine the reasons for these crashes.

Dempo1

So, i have asked WTF are the Traffic Corps up to these days now that Speed monitoring has been tendered out at enormous expense. I may have found one answer (Apparently they like to take Saturdays off)

I could not help but notice at 9.15 this morning in a large midlands town, 4 Garda corps Cars/ Estates etc parked up nice and snug inside a Garda barracks car park, nicely dusted with a light coat of snow and note a sign of any intention to have them on patrol. OK these guys too are entitled to an occasional weekend off but it was clear to me that at least one district had little intention of having any of its traffic division on today.

Then driving very slowly on treacherous roads, it got me thinking are we to rely on these silly, pointless and expensive vans to come to our aid in such hazardous conditions.

Seems to me that my initial concerns that this nonsensical new approach is a cynical attempt to release traffic corps Gardai from the function this department was set up for. At least they have been kept busy at the recent protests at the dail.

Iwannahurl

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

wreckless overtaking.

Freudian or what?

I suspect repeated instances of 'wreckless' though dangerous overtaking is one phenomenon which convinces many motorists that speeding is OK...

Atomic Pineapple

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Using vans to detect the average speed of cars on a stretch of road will not determine the reason for crashes happening on a stretch of road though.

You could have a road where people drive 10mph over the limit and have had two deaths caused by wreckless overtaking.

The only way to determine these locations in my mind is to take it on a crash by crash basis and determine the reasons for these crashes.

They have also stated that they intend to survey roads and if they find that up to 85% of drivers break the posted limit for that road they will allow GoSafe to deploy there.

Nothing to do with accidents or black spots or anything just simply if the road has up to 85% of drivers breaking a posted speed limit.

Now an intelligent person might stand back and question the actual limit placed on the road instead, if 85% of drivers are breaking a posted speed limit yet the road has zero fatal crashes then surely the question of the speed limit being too low for that road should be posed first?

-Chris-

An intelligent solution would be to put in the sequence:

Survey the speed

If 85% are over the speed limit, insist the local council assess the road and verify/adjust the limit in a transparent way

Only put the road on the speed trap list after the road & speed limit have been assessed and verified

Simples!

flutered

-Chris- wrote: »

You're only a moderator in your own forum, everywhere else you're a regular user.

Also, I wasn't specifically warning homer_simpson, that warning was for the benefit of everyone.... :cool:

i got a rattle from a mod on the poltics form, about a thread in the sligo forum,

ART6

draffodx wrote: »

They have also stated that they intend to survey roads and if they find that up to 85% of drivers break the posted limit for that road they will allow GoSafe to deploy there.

Nothing to do with accidents or black spots or anything just simply if the road has up to 85% of drivers breaking a posted speed limit.

Now an intelligent person might stand back and question the actual limit placed on the road instead, if 85% of drivers are breaking a posted speed limit yet the road has zero fatal crashes then surely the question of the speed limit being too low for that road should be posed first?

This suggests that what really matters to the authorities is a blind adherence to a speed limit even if it is too low. If anyone ever doubted that the whole program has more to do with revenue that safety, maybe this is the answer.

Perhaps it might be worth these "experts" first considering, in accidents where excessive speed was a contributory factor or the main cause, how excessive was that speed? I don't know, but I would guess that in such cases the driver was way over the limit, either the posted one or a safe one. If that's the case, how will fining someone who is 5 kph over the limit going to make any difference? How many accidents were caused by someone who was 5 kph over the limit?

Once again the majority are being penalised for the sins of the minority, but there's nothing unusual in that. It's as far as the "authorities" can think. What would make more sense to me would be that the detectors would issue fines and points to anyone exceeding speed limits by (say) 20% but not to anyone within that. So anyone doing 61 in a 50 kph zone would be caught, as would someone doing 145 in a 120 zone. How many of us driving in (say) a 50 limit have not on occasion strayed above the posted limit by a little?

I know people will claim that all that would do would be to raise the speed limit in public perception by 20%, but I don't believe it. I think most responsible drivers keep more or less within the limits without having their eyes glued to their speedos. It's the idiots who think they are Lewis Hamilton who consistently ignore any realistic limit, and it's those who should be targeted.

*Ah but----Plays clinking sound of cash register.*

-Chris-

flutered wrote: »

i got a rattle from a mod on the poltics form, about a thread in the sligo forum,

Then take it up with them and stop taking this thread off-topic.

/Discussion

-Chris-

ART6 wrote: »

What would make more sense to me would be that the detectors would issue fines and points to anyone exceeding speed limits by (say) 20% but not to anyone within that. So anyone doing 61 in a 50 kph zone would be caught, as would someone doing 145 in a 120 zone. How many of us driving in (say) a 50 limit have not on occasion strayed above the posted limit by a little?

But you have to bear in mind the fact that these guys are under the instruction of the Gardai, and neither they nor the Gardai will ever want to be on record as saying "it's ok to speed as long as you're not more than 20% above the limit". There'd be uproar.

There may be a tolerance level agreed between the two parties, but we'll probably never be told.

ART6

-Chris- wrote: »

But you have to bear in mind the fact that these guys are under the instruction of the Gardai, and neither they nor the Gardai will ever want to be on record as saying "it's ok to speed as long as you're not more than 20% above the limit". There'd be uproar.

There may be a tolerance level agreed between the two parties, but we'll probably never be told.

I wasn't suggesting that such a flexible approach should be advertised. Clearly that would be stupid. However, if the allowance was made but not advertised then those who stray a little over the limit unintentionally would not be hit, while those who ignore all realistic limits would be.

Iwannahurl

ART6 wrote: »

This suggests that what really matters to the authorities is a blind adherence to a speed limit even if it is too low.
...
how will fining someone who is 5 kph over the limit going to make any difference? How many accidents were caused by someone who was 5 kph over the limit?
...
Once again the majority are being penalised for the sins of the minority,
...
I think most responsible drivers keep more or less within the limits

1. Speed limits are in force throughout the developed world, and they are there for a reason. Of course there is variation between countries (and quite possibly inappropriate site-specific variation within countries) but the overall rationale is the same: the lower the average speed the safer the road environment overall.

2. Speed limits are population-level measures. It is probably impossible or certainly very difficult to implement a speed camera system that would monitor multiple variations at individual or sub-group level (without prominent labelling such as L or R plates), whatever about variable speed limits in certain locations or in certain conditions. The overall effects of speed limits are also best considered at population level.

3. Speed limits are a form of social contract, with citizens being expected to comply for the greater public good. Insisting that higher speed is just a problem for those other people over there who are bad drivers/chancers/muppets doesn't wash. That is just a form of special pleading which is unworkable within the context of a population-level intervention.

4. Any contract is only worth the paper it is written on if it is enforceable. A reasonable possibility of being caught and penalised is required if people are to take the contract seriously. The primary purpose of enforcement is, or ought to be, deterrence and in this regard the perceived risk of being caught must be high enough to have an effect: "The overall preventive effects of police surveillance are generally greater if the subjective risk of the offender being caught is higher, if the penalty is more severe, if the certainty of punishment is increased, and if the penalty is imposed more rapidly" (Fred Wegman/SWOV, 2002: Review of Ireland's Road Safety Strategy).

5. If most responsible drivers keep within the speed limits (aka honour the social contract), whether through a boring old-fashioned tendency to be law-abiding or an aversion to being nabbed and fined, then they are unlikely to ever hear the dreaded ker-ching of the Government cash registers.

6. Small increases in speed can have a significant effect, even though the excess may feel subjectively trivial. Take this 5 kph difference, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tQ_9OD8vc8

Iwannahurl

In a 60 km/h speed limit area, the risk of involvement in a casualty crash doubles with each 5 km/h increase in travelling speed above 60 km/h.

~New South Wales Road & Traffic Authority

ART6

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In a 60 km/h speed limit area, the risk of involvement in a casualty crash doubles with each 5 km/h increase in travelling speed above 60 km/h.

~New South Wales Road & Traffic Authority

With respect to your well reasoned post, I disagree. These sorts of statistics always concentrate on the severity of accidents. For example, there are statistics that state that vehicle/pedestrian accidents are generally survivable at speeds up to 50 kph. Therefore, if that is accepted, then perhaps all vehicles should be limited to 50 kph. That would, of course, be taking the obsession with safety a step too far.

What would have more significance for me would be statistics that show how the likelihood of accidents increases for every 5 kph of increased speed. Consider a motorway with a speed limit of 120 kph. Is the likelihood of accidents there significantly increased at a speed of 130 kph? Or on a secondary road with a limit of 80. Accidents more likely at 90?

I am not advocating speeding or the ignoring of realistic limits. Let's face it, the limits are designed to account for poor or average drivers, not Formula One experts. The point that I am making is that fining someone for straying over the limit by a few percent does not address the problem of the idiot who is going to go over it by in excess of 50%. It simply sets out to also punish the competent driver who normally sticks within the limit but might occasionally stray over it for a short period. That is why I still have difficulty believing that the cameras are not revenue raisers.

JamesBond2010

Dont Forget some of the roads are **** & you could barely fit 2 Big Trucks side by side on some of them.

Son Of A Vidic

Slow camera's anyone? I drive 60,000KM a year and I'm sick and tired of saps doing 60KPH in a 100KPH zone. These said saps, then will continue doing 65KPH through a 50KPH zone So why not slow cameras? If you're causing an obstruction/nuisance/impeding the progress of other road users, shouldn't this be equally punished?

flutered

many moons ago when i lived in the us one got nabbed quicker for going under the limit rather than being over the limit, ther there were two limits one top and one minimum

Iwannahurl

ART6 wrote: »

With respect to your well reasoned post, I disagree. These sorts of statistics always concentrate on the severity of accidents. For example, there are statistics that state that vehicle/pedestrian accidents are generally survivable at speeds up to 50 kph. Therefore, if that is accepted, then perhaps all vehicles should be limited to 50 kph. That would, of course, be taking the obsession with safety a step too far.

What would have more significance for me would be statistics that show how the likelihood of accidents increases for every 5 kph of increased speed. Consider a motorway with a speed limit of 120 kph. Is the likelihood of accidents there significantly increased at a speed of 130 kph? Or on a secondary road with a limit of 80. Accidents more likely at 90?

I am not advocating speeding or the ignoring of realistic limits. Let's face it, the limits are designed to account for poor or average drivers, not Formula One experts. The point that I am making is that fining someone for straying over the limit by a few percent does not address the problem of the idiot who is going to go over it by in excess of 50%. It simply sets out to also punish the competent driver who normally sticks within the limit but might occasionally stray over it for a short period. That is why I still have difficulty believing that the cameras are not revenue raisers.

Aw c'mon -- you need to do more than just say you disagree with the six paragraphs above!

In fact the above data, especially that graph, refer to risk (probability/likelihood) of collision and not severity. Note that the vertical axis in the graph is labelled Relative Risk.

With regard to severity, there is a clear causal relationship between changes in speed and changes in road safety. The larger the change in speed, the larger the effect on accidents or accident victims. Thus a 10% reduction in the average speed of traffic can be estimated to reduce the number of road accident fatalities by 38%. By way of contrast, a 10% overall reduction in drink-driving would give a reduction in fatalities of 1%, while the same reduction in non-wearing of seat belts would lead to 0.8% fewer fatalities.

Those figures are from an important 2004 report, Speed and road accidents: an evaluation of the Power Model, which states emphatically that "speed is the most important factor to regulate" in the implementation of road safety policy.

The US Transportation Research Board has said that "the strength of the relationship between speed and crash severity alone is sufficient reason for managing speed".

The reason that the causal relationship is so abundantly clear in terms of collision severity is that the effects of speed on that variable are based on the inescapable realities of pure physics.

However, the TRB goes on to acknowledge that although speed is also linked to the probability of being in a crash, the evidence is not as compelling because crashes are often complex events that seldom can be attributed to a single factor.

Nevertheless, the speed/crash probability causal link is also well established by research.

The European Road Safety Observatory says:

A higher speed increases the likelihood of an accident. Very strong relationships have been established between speed and accident risk: The general relationship holds for all speeds and all roads, but the rate of increase in accident risk varies with initial speed level and road type.

They continue:

A change in average speed of 1 km/h will result in a change in accident numbers ranging between 2% for a 120 km/h road and 4% for a 50 km/h road. This result has been confirmed by many before and after studies of different speed reduction measures. This relationship is used by ... Scandinavian countries and by Australian and Dutch safety engineers.

1 km/h increase in speed → 3% increase in accidents
In practice the relationship is more complex. The exact relationship depends among many other things on speed level and road type.

The higher the speed, the steeper the increase in accident risk
The relationship between speed and accident risk is a power function: With increasing speed, the accident risk increases more as the absolute speed is higher.

Bold added by me.

The whole revenue-raising aspect is a very vexed question and brings us into the murky world of politics (with a small p) and issues such as public attitudes towards different law enforcement measures. Such matters are inherently messy and not easily amenable to rational analysis. By way of an example of the kind of stuff that muddies the waters, there's a new thread in Motors which highlights a newspaper story in which the businessman behind the GoSafe consortium was clocked twice (by reporters) breaking the speed limit.

That kind of thing only fuels suspicions that the whole speed camera operation is a money-making scam. Rational thinking goes out the window and anti-authoritarian (and currently anti-government) emotion takes over. Which is a great pity, given the evidence in favour of measures aimed at controlling speed, including speed cameras.

Supposedly GoSafe are paid by the hour, so they don't make more money if more speeders are caught. That doesn't seem to satisfy the sceptics though. I doubt that the system purposely sets out to target motorists who "might occasionally stray over [the speed limit] for a short period". I'm aware of the APCOA '10% plus 2 mph' flexibility in the UK. Such clarity would help here. But again, the overall purpose of enforcement is deterrence. If a large majority of motorists can be persuaded to routinely stay at or below the posted speed limit, then the renegade outliers/outlaws/idiots are going to stick out like a sore thumb.

I say give it time. If road casualties decrease consistently then the system will be worth the cost and the effort, as well as the stoic acceptance of the citizenry.

Iwannahurl

medicman2009 wrote: »

Slow camera's anyone? I drive 60,000KM a year and I'm sick and tired of saps doing 60KPH in a 100KPH zone. These said saps, then will continue doing 65KPH through a 50KPH zone So why not slow cameras? If you're causing an obstruction/nuisance/impeding the progress of other road users, shouldn't this be equally punished?

They're the "my speed" drivers who seem to have no awareness of other road users or maybe even the road itself.

Speed cameras would of course detect them doing 65 in a 50 zone, and the My Speed brigade being so dim they would rapidly accumulate sufficient penalty points to finally get their attention or put them off the road.

That wouldn't solve the 60 in a 100 zone problem though (until the My Speeders were put off the road, that is). I'm not sure what the best strategy is to deal with this cohort.

Atomic Pineapple

medicman2009 wrote: »

Slow camera's anyone? I drive 60,000KM a year and I'm sick and tired of saps doing 60KPH in a 100KPH zone. These said saps, then will continue doing 65KPH through a 50KPH zone So why not slow cameras? If you're causing an obstruction/nuisance/impeding the progress of other road users, shouldn't this be equally punished?

Slow cameras would be as bad as speed cameras, they come with the same issues, the fact that they only catch a driver at a certain point in time and based on that decide whether they deserve punishment or not.

The GTC should be used to a much greater effect by actually enforcing Irish traffic rules of the roads, they should be out patrolling and observing driver behaviour and punish does that make driving in Ireland more dangerous, for example, slow nervous drivers, spaced out drivers, people on there phones lane drifters, lane disobedience. All of this will target the cause of accidents.

flutered wrote: »

many moons ago when i lived in the us one got nabbed quicker for going under the limit rather than being over the limit, ther there were two limits one top and one minimum

I do believe they even use light aircraft in America to track a cars average speed over a long distance so they actually target real speeders?

Iwannahurl

draffodx wrote: »

Slow cameras would be as bad as speed cameras, they come with the same issues, the fact that they only catch a driver at a certain point in time and based on that decide whether they deserve punishment or not.

The GTC should be used to a much greater effect by actually enforcing Irish traffic rules of the roads, they should be out patrolling and observing driver behaviour and punish does that make driving in Ireland more dangerous, for example, slow nervous drivers, spaced out drivers, people on there phones lane drifters, lane disobedience. All of this will target the cause of accidents.

I do believe they even use light aircraft in America to track a cars average speed over a long distance so they actually target real speeders?

That also make driving in Ireland more dangerous...

A couple of points:

1. Drivers driving much faster than the average driver have a higher accident risk; it is not yet evident that this is also the case for the slower driver.

2. Such enforcement is taking place, as reflected in the Penalty Point stats, though there's not near enough of it IMO.

kiwipower

What I can never understand with all the new technology around, why do we need Garda Breathalizers and speed cameras trying to catch people out??

Why not use the available technology?
for example:

1. A breathalizer attatched to the ignition which wont allow the car to start if the driver is over the limit?
2. A GPS style system which tells the cars on-board computer what the limit is when the car passess the speed limit sign, the computer could then issue a high pitch annoying sound when you go slightly over the limit, and stops the car from accelerating past an agreed maximum?
3. A weight detector in carseats. If the belt is not then attatched car will not start or will be forced to slow down?

Then we could get into the real issuse. The correct speed limits (max and min) for individual parts of roads.

Eoin

On the first one - I read a story about a woman in the States who had a breathalyser fitted to the ignition because of a previous DUI - so she had her child blow into it so she could drive them home while she was pissed.

There's ways to get around every gadget they can fit to a car. Perhaps some could be used in conjunction with checkpoints etc, but they should never replace them. There needs to be a fear of being stopped.

Atomic Pineapple

kiwipower wrote: »

What I can never understand with all the new technology around, why do we need Garda Breathalizers and speed cameras trying to catch people out??

Why not use the available technology?
for example:

1. A breathalizer attatched to the ignition which wont allow the car to start if the driver is over the limit?
2. A GPS style system which tells the cars on-board computer what the limit is when the car passess the speed limit sign, the computer could then issue a high pitch annoying sound when you go slightly over the limit, and stops the car from accelerating past an agreed maximum?
3. A weight detector in carseats. If the belt is not then attatched car will not start or will be forced to slow down?

Then we could get into the real issuse. The correct speed limits (max and min) for individual parts of roads.

As eoin said, the in car breathalysers are easily bypassed.

GPS maps for Ireland are constantly out of date, taking control away from the driver is probably a good thing 99% of the time but the 1% when driver ability is needed to drive a bit faster it could end up as being the cause of what its meant to prevent. Besides anyone who enjoys driving would just rip them out, I know I would.

I dont think seat belt wearing is an issue, I think everyone these days realise its a good thing and those that dont never will.

Theres also no point tackling the issues of incorrect speed limits on certain roads until the issue of incompetent, nervous and slow drivers are reeducated to a higher standard.

Many of our roads could easily handle higher speed limits if Ireland's drivers were educated properly.