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

cyclopath2001

SeanW wrote: »

You seem to have an absolute "Black and White" view of speed limits as law.

You either obey road traffic laws or you don't. Not just the specific limits but also the general duty of care and respect for others.

What I see here is people trying to weasel out of their social obligations using conspiracy theories, denial, blame-shifting and evasion.

-Chris-

SeanW wrote: »

In fact I don't think so because your name includes the term cyclopath, which is a known term for cycling hyper-agressive fashion, and I once saw the term being used specifically to describe cyclists who cycle on footpaths.

Imagine if I had a username that said "Idrive60mphThruSchools" and proceeded to lecture you on obeying the law. Do you think you'd have a problem with that? I think you would, and you would be right.

Attack the post, not the poster please.

SeanW

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You either obey road traffic laws or you don't.

But do you feel the same way about ALL laws, or just the ones that affect motorists?

cyclopath2001

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

dont forget where is the stats for this or are they just made up???

I think anyone who drives with an awareness of their own speed and that of others around them would already know this without having to ask, but here's an official source:

According to the RSA

Although speed is a demonstrated road collision causal factor, in 2008, the percentage of drivers exceeding speed limit ranged from 16% to 86% depending on the road type and posted speed limit. Furthermore, the percentage of drivers found breaking the speed limit by 10 km/h or more ranged between 3% and 47%, depending on the road type.

That's from a 2008 survey. It will be interesting to see if the increased use of safety cameras has had an effect on driver behaviour and attitudes.

Reg'stoy

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

bull **** and ye are the type of ones that still believe that NCT is not corrupt & believe everything you read.

Ahem..........

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

dont forget where is the stats for this or are they just made up???

Slighty ironic there Mr bond, considering a briefing document by the head of the Garda safety camera division presented by another poster as evidence against the attitude that safety vans are revenue generators you describe as bull****, yet when someone posts a figure you disagree with you demand proof.

Incidentally to counterbalance this discussion I did come across a study from Sweden where the size of speeding fines are based on one's salary and so speed cameras were placed deliberately in the more affluent areas of Stockholm to catch high earners.

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Fatal accidents can happen anywhere people behave unsafely.

You there! Stop being so unsafe!

JamesBond2010

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Ahem..........



Slighty ironic there Mr bond, considering a briefing document by the head of the Garda safety camera division presented by another poster as evidence against the attitude that safety vans are revenue generators you describe as bull****, yet when someone posts a figure you disagree with you demand proof.

Incidentally to counterbalance this discussion I did come across a study from Sweden where the size of speeding fines are based on one's salary and so speed cameras were placed deliberately in the more affluent areas of Stockholm to catch high earners.

I Did not Disagree with it. READ THE POST AGAIN!!!. i said where are the stats?? & ARE they made up???? Questions, read it properly before accusing people....

& u provide a link which is the wrong one.I could made a no. saying 56% of cars speeding are red & the other 44% are different colours...how would you know that is false or not if i provided no proof to show you.

JamesBond2010

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Ahem..........



Incidentally to counterbalance this discussion I did come across a study from Sweden where the size of speeding fines are based on one's salary and so speed cameras were placed deliberately in the more affluent areas of Stockholm to catch high earners.

so ur saying they are revenue generators as well:P

JamesBond2010

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I think anyone who drives with an awareness of their own speed and that of others around them would already know this without having to ask, but here's an official source:

According to the RSA
you always ask others for stats or proof as well!!!

So they are not made up

Going Forward

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's illegal to exceed the speed limit on any road, regardless of whether or not there has been ever a fatal accident there.

You're simply grasping at straws looking for reasons why the authorities should not enforce the law.

Why are you being disingenuous?

Why not actually address the point of my post to which you felt the need to reply to instead of lecturing, playing God and arriving at the incorrect assumption that I do not wish to see the law being enforced?

You are coming across as someone who has been personally badly affected by a road traffic accident, and if that is the case, I offer you my genuine sympathy.

If not and its just some kind of hobby horse of yours, please take the time to get a life and stop flogging this horse to death.

PS Have a look at my post on page 110 of this thread.

Our man in Havana

I wonder how much do the RSA pay their stooges to post the party line here?

-Chris-

Our man in Havana wrote: »

I wonder how much do the RSA pay their stooges to post the party line here?

If you've a problem with a specific poster/post, please report it.

Let's neither let this thread turn personal, nor turn into a witch-hunt.

JamesBond2010

-Chris- wrote: »

nor turn into a witch-hunt.

Those witches are 8itches for speeding on their brooms:D:D

Iwannahurl

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You either obey road traffic laws or you don't. Not just the specific limits but also the general duty of care and respect for others.

What I see here is people trying to weasel out of their social obligations using conspiracy theories, denial, blame-shifting and evasion.

And here's a neat example of same:

Our man in Havana wrote: »

I wonder how much do the RSA pay their stooges to post the party line here?

If only it was true -- I could do with the dosh...

Going Forward

Our man in Havana wrote: »

I wonder how much do the RSA pay their stooges to post the party line here?

Another assumption, and again incorrect; in fact, I have little time for the RSA, particularly believe it or not for both the well worn mantra of "Speed Kills", and their morally lifting slogan of "Saving Lives".

I often take time to ponder just how many lives I have saved, and then pat myself on the back.

The lazy "Speed Kills" message IMO excuses the actual fact that thick, inept, idiot drivers kill either themselves or others.
Of course, that could never be said out loud could it?
No not when the RSA actually attend christian memorial services remembering road traffic accident deaths- if they hadnt died in the accident it would be the RSA prosecuting them!

"Lane Departure Kills" doesnt quite have the same ring to it, although it is probably technically a more accurate statement.

Having said all of that, I also accept that there is a need for speed limits, and in the same way as if I decide to flout other motoring laws, such as not bothering to have car insurance, I can also accept that if caught breaking the law, I will have to face certain consequences.

This is not rocket science, its not particularly confusing either, the limits are posted fairly well, and if they are not posted clearly, complain to someone about it, failing that if the letter arrives in the post, one could always perjure oneself in court and deny that it ever did.

Does anyone on here actually have any sympathy for a driver who is for example currently carrying 8 or 10 penalty points for speeding despite all the advertising etc etc?

Time for a lot of people to wise up if they do, and realise that that driver doesnt give a sh1t about himself, those he carries in the car or any other road user.

The "poor me" attitude rings hollow after 5 or 6 penalty points IMO.

The thing which I do have a problem with is what I understood to be the rationale regarding the placement of the cameras as previously stated.

To say one thing and do another is, well a bit misleading, and does allow it to be opened up to debate about it being a revenue raising excersise.

Of course, that argument could have be blown out of the water had the RSA come out and said after a couple of months of the system being up and running that

"The GoSafe survey vans have recoded an unnacceptable level of speed in certain built up/urban areas which will be addressed by the random placement of camera vans at such locations in a further effort to help reduce speed in these areas" blah blah blah....

Simple. That didnt happen, so the suspicions are there and are going to remain there.

savagecabbages

Going Forward wrote: »

The lazy "Speed Kills" message IMO excuses the actual fact that thick, inept, idiot drivers kill either themselves or others.
Of course, that could never be said out loud could it?

It is lazy, but if making the thick, inept idiot drivers drive more slowly then it'l mean less of them will be killed. Because they are thick, inept and idiots, I don't think this holy grail of "driver education" that many opponents of speed limit enforcement seek will work...

Iwannahurl

Going Forward wrote: »

The lazy "Speed Kills" message IMO excuses the actual fact that thick, inept, idiot drivers kill either themselves or others.
Of course, that could never be said out loud could it?

...

"Lane Departure Kills" doesnt quite have the same ring to it, although it is probably technically a more accurate statement.

The technically more accurate statement is that higher speed increases both the probability and severity of crashes.

"Speed Kills", in the advertising/awareness-raising context in which it exists, is a reasonable soundbite-sized summary of the longer statement above, IMO.

Going Forward

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Speed Kills", in the advertising/awareness-raising context in which it exists, is a reasonable soundbite-sized summary of the longer statement above, IMO.

Possibly, but will drivers become immune to it/fed up with hearing it incessantly for the next 20 years?

It could be counterproductive placing all their bets on this one phrase?

They shouldnt be afraid to expand the thing just a little.......

Iwannahurl

Google search for "Speed Kills" on rsa.ie produces 1 hit.

Same search on garda.ie gets 9 hits.

Not excessive for such a well-established slogan...

eringobragh

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You either obey road traffic laws or you don't. Not just the specific limits but also the general duty of care and respect for others.

What I see here is people trying to weasel out of their social obligations using conspiracy theories, denial, blame-shifting and evasion.

<snip stupid pic>

cyclopath2001

eringobragh wrote: »

<snip stupid pic>

....conspiracy theories, blame shifting, denial, evasion........and plain old fasioned abuse.

I think enforcement measures will be with us for some time.

R.O.R

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

86% of drivers drive in excess of the maximum permitted in urban areas.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I think anyone who drives with an awareness of their own speed and that of others around them would already know this without having to ask, but here's an official source:

According to the RSA

Quote:

Although speed is a demonstrated road collision causal factor, in 2008, the percentage of drivers exceeding speed limit ranged from 16% to 86% depending on the road type and posted speed limit. Furthermore, the percentage of drivers found breaking the speed limit by 10 km/h or more ranged between 3% and 47%, depending on the road type.

That's from a 2008 survey. It will be interesting to see if the increased use of safety cameras has had an effect on driver behaviour and attitudes.

So, what you are saying is that only 16% of driver's exceed the speed limit, and only 3% by more than 10 km/h?

I fcukin hate people twisting stat's to their own (blinkered) thinking.

Reading through the linked RSA doc:

There was a significant decrease in the percentage of cars
exceeding the 50km/h speed limit in urban residential areas,
dropping from 23% in 2007 to 4% in 2008

4% is a pretty low amount in my books, and substantially lower than the 86% you claimed.

Going Forward

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Google search for "Speed Kills" on rsa.ie produces 1 hit.

Same search on garda.ie gets 9 hits.

Not excessive for such a well-established slogan...

True enough there.

cyclopath2001

R.O.R wrote: »

4% is a pretty low amount in my books, and substantially lower than the 86% you claimed.

That figure still represents many thousands of drivers posing excessive risk.

The survey found a significant improvement in the percentage of vehicles complying with speed limits on urban national and urban residential roads. However, overall driver compliance with speed limits on urban roads is still poor. On average, 3 out of 5 motorists exceeded the posted speed limit in urban areas.....The proportion of cars exceeding the speed limit on urban national roads (in 50km/h zones) fell from 86% in 2007 to 78% in 2008.

R.O.R wrote: »

So, what you are saying is that only 16% of driver's exceed the speed limit

No, I'm not: see above.

Speed is restricted not just because it may be a causal factor, but also because of its contribution to the severity of the outcome, regardless of the cause.

The limit is the maximum permitted in ideal driving conditions. So, in reality, excessive speed is more prevalent than stated in the report as the safe speed may be lower in rain or poor visibility.

JamesBond2010

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Ahem..........


Slighty ironic there Mr bond, considering a briefing document by the head of the Garda safety camera division presented by another poster as evidence against the attitude that safety vans are revenue generators you describe as bull****, yet when someone posts a figure you disagree with you demand proof.
.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

R.O.R wrote: »

4% is a pretty low amount in my books, and substantially lower than the 86% you claimed.

That figure still represents many thousands of drivers posing excessive risk.

No, I'm not: see above.

Speed is restricted not just because it may be a causal factor, but also because of its contribution to the severity of the outcome, regardless of the cause.

The limit is the maximum permitted in ideal driving conditions. So, in reality, excessive speed is more prevalent than stated in the report as the safe speed may be lower in rain or poor visibility.

Looks like i might have been right!!!

Reg'stoy

JamesBond2010 wrote: »

Looks like i might have been right!!!

This is what is wrong with people quoting cherry picked stats, the poster who quoted the 86% was correct with that figure but from! 2007 although they should have in fairness quoted the particular paragraph, and I have lifted that relevant section from the PDF document which is excellent reading no matter what side of this discussion you fall on. The other poster who quoted 4% is also correct but he should also have quoted the paragraph in it's entirety.

The proportion of cars exceeding the speed limit on urban national
roads (in 50km/h zones) fell from 86% in 2007 to 78% in 2008.
There was a significant decrease in the percentage of cars
exceeding the 50km/h speed limit in urban residential areas,
dropping from 23% in 2007 to 4% in 2008.


I personally feel that the 4% should be highlighted because it shows that people are responsible about speed limits in their own housing estates, it also unfortunatly shows that 3/4's of us as in 78% exceed the urban 50kph speed limit, down from 86%.

We could infer from the above figures that people are careful with their speed in their own housing estates, now this could be due to the nature of the roads (speedbumps, windy, narrower roads etc) or are people more aware of the effects of speeding in residential areas, we all remember the advert about the child been hit by a car travelling at below the speed limit and above the speed limit.

76% of us do though speed in urban areas, bare in mind some of these roads still have pedestrians and children on them while in other locations they are dual carriageway like. The 50kph limit applies to all urban roads no matter their type and so should be obeyed, the limits are set to some degree by county engineers and local authorities with advice from the Gardai. Complain to your local counciller or TD if you disagree with said limits.

Now while local authorities can set certain limits their hands are tied in so far as urban/national/motorway limits are laid down in law.

I believe (my opinion based on the facts as I see them) that vans and cameras are not placed as revenue generators, why not simply increase the fine itself. I choose to believe the document from the Garda Super, as in my day to day work I have dealings with the Gardai and unfortunatly I also directly see the effects of road traffic accidents what ever their cause may be. If you have ever experienced a RTA you would believe me, do, if it was in your power; the upmost to prevent them from ever happening again.

Certain individuals will always take the chance (my self included) that 10 or 20 above the limit (fuel economy stops me doing much more 120kph) on the M50 or Naas road which I travel at least twice a day is ok, if I get caught it's hands up 'fair cop govenor'. I do however drive as per road conditions weather wise and I take particular note of urban limits and to be honest driving at 50kph or even 30kph on the keys in Dublin city centre did not cause my ears to bleed.

If and when I get caught it will have been my right foot on the pedal and to be honest I have never (others claim to have) seen a van on a dangerous bend on a back road or blind corner. I don't know the science involved in them checking your speed but I would imagine that it has to view you directly for a distance (hard to do around a corner). If you don't agree with a particular limit, I'm sorry to say that does not give you carte blanche to exceed it and then complain when caught. I am of the opinion that there should be no road tax and it should be placed directly on fuel but I still have to pay road tax even though I pay €4 a day tolls but that arguement is for another thread .

JamesBond2010

Reg'stoy wrote: »

This is what is wrong with people quoting cherry picked stats, the poster who quoted the 86% was correct with that figure but from! 2007 although they should have in fairness quoted the particular paragraph, and I have lifted that relevant section from the PDF document which is excellent reading no matter what side of this discussion you fall on. The other poster who quoted 4% is also correct but he should also have quoted the paragraph in it's entirety.

.

thats what i was saying about providing proof. you can see it then.. u know its not made up then....

Ya Some roads are **** hardly wide enough for car & truck to pass.

Get a tag.. their great

JamesBond2010

Reg'stoy wrote: »

If and when I get caught it will have been my right foot on the pedal and to be honest I have never (others claim to have) seen a van on a dangerous bend on a back road or blind corner. I don't know the science involved in them checking your speed but I would imagine that it has to view you directly for a distance (hard to do around a corner). If you don't agree with a particular limit, I'm sorry to say that does not give you carte blanche to exceed it and then complain when caught. I am of the opinion that there should be no road tax and it should be placed directly on fuel but I still have to pay road tax even though I pay €4 a day tolls but that arguement is for another thread .

i seen one coming back from Cork one nite parked outside a house on the road never would have seen it if i didnt have my headlights on:eek::eek:

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, I see speed cameras parked coming into Limerick from Shannon on the N18, just before the Caherdavin Exit and going back out on the N18/E20, coming from Shannon Bridge, just before the Coonagh roundabout.
I am very reasonable, if someone can post me evidence that anyone has been killed there, I will gladly concede the argument and from now on speak only in favour of speed cameras.
I actually have no personal grudge against them, I don't mind them, I know where I can safely put the foot down and haven't received any points from our friends at Go Safe yet and don't expect to see any in the future (because I know the 5 locations where they ALWAYS are)

cyclopath2001

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I am very reasonable, if someone can post me evidence that anyone has been killed there, I will gladly concede the argument and from now on speak only in favour of speed

Why draw the line at road deaths? How about life-changing serious injuries? To, meet with your approval of law enforcement measures, could we agree a conversion rate of, say 5 serious injuries to the road death? Or could we measure it some other way?