Safety Cameras - what are they up to?

oscarBravo

eagle eye wrote: »

If you need to maintain a certain speed on the road to get to where you are going on time then you should leave earlier and take into account that you are going to meet slow drivers on occasion.

Why do the competent drivers have to take the slow drivers into account when planning their journeys, but the slow drivers are under no obligation to give a damn about anyone else?

I remember when a friend had to leave work after his shift and drive straight to a Coast Guard exercise some 80km away. There was ample time for him to cover the journey within the speed limit and arrive early, but he was late because of a succession of slow drivers.

Your answer is that he should have bunked off work early. Sorry, but that's not always a luxury that people can afford.

JustinDee

Oh ffs.
If you're to be somewhere, you'll always take into account the traffic and traffic obstacles you may encounter. If you're late, you're late. Thats what Paddy Driver needs to understand. If I'm going from Maynooth to Naas, I'll naturally (and probably subconsciously) take into account that there is a longish stretch that I cannot overtake on and will leave accordingly.

Since the anecdotals are coming back to the thread: Back in 1991, a friend of mine was late for a cricket match (I was living abroad at the time). He was speeding down the old Dublin-Celbridge road trying to get to the game on time. Colliding with an oil-tanker making a turn at a crossroads, he was killed instantly as he was decapitated in the collision. Truck shouldn't have broke out for the turn as traffic was coming (not just my friend). My friend, an experienced driver, shouldn't have been speeding.

oscarBravo

JustinDee wrote: »

If you're to be somewhere, you'll always take into account the traffic and traffic obstacles you may encounter. If you're late, you're late. Thats what Paddy Driver needs to understand.

I wonder if you'd feel the same way should someone block you into your driveway and keep you an hour late for work. Sure, it's inconsiderate behaviour that's causing you problems, but so what? If you're late, you're late.

JustinDee

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wonder if you'd feel the same way should someone block you into your driveway and keep you an hour late for work. Sure, it's inconsiderate behaviour that's causing you problems, but so what? If you're late, you're late.

Hardly the same situation.
If you think it is, then I dare you to take a driving test again lol

cyclopath2001

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wonder if you'd feel the same way should someone block you into your driveway and keep you an hour late for work.

This is getting absurd, you're now stretching from the the threat posed by slow moving elderly people to persons unknown blocking your driveway. In Dublin we just call that traffic. It's a nuisance, but we have to accept that other people use the road too and they have conflicting needs and priorities to us.

The most inconsiderate thing anyone can do is to kill or maim you or your loved ones. Causing irritatation or frustration is not on the same planet as these serious problems we have in society.

oscarBravo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

...persons unknown blocking your driveway. In Dublin we just call that traffic.

Yeah, right.

It's a nuisance, but we have to accept that other people use the road too and they have conflicting needs and priorities to us.

And clearly, the slower the driver, the higher the priority.

The most inconsiderate thing anyone can do is to kill or maim you or your loved ones.

Which never, ever, ever happens at or below the legally-posted speed limit.

cyclopath2001

oscarBravo wrote: »

And clearly, the slower the driver, the higher the priority.

Feel free to complain to the Gardai the next time your confident competant gallop is interrupted by a retired district nurse looking in on isolated members of her community, or a former Garda doing the meals on wheels run.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which never, ever, ever happens at or below the legally-posted speed limit.

Well, if we used effective means of monitoring and recording driver behaviour, we'd have the facts.

thebman

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Feel free to complain to the Gardai the next time your confident competant gallop is interrupted by a retired district nurse looking in on isolated members of her community, or a former Garda doing the meals on wheels run.

:rolleyes: Really, your examples are extremely biased to a crazy level I've never seen before.

It is really quite amazing to watch :pac:

How about the driver is actually just a normal person doing 60km/h with a queue behind them and doesn't really care about the queue of cars forming behind them?

What they are doing is irrelevant really, they have a queue behind them and they don't care it is there. That is inconsiderate driving in most peoples books and just as bad as many other road offenses. It is quite scary that we can't all agree on that TBH.

cyclopath2001

thebman wrote: »

How about the driver is actually just a normal person... .

Interesting choice of word.

thebman

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Interesting choice of word.

More interesting is that you still can't agree that inconsiderate driving is inconsiderate :pac:

oscarBravo

I can't help but notice that all these retired nurses and guards who are doing the world a favour by slowing lunatics like me down to 70km/h have a tendency to continue doing 70 once they pass a 50km/h speed limit sign. It's almost as if they don't know or care what speed they're doing, or what the current speed limit is.

On the plus side, once they enter that 50km/h zone they instantly become homicidal lunatics who should be removed from the road before they kill us all.

cyclopath2001

thebman wrote: »

More interesting is that you still can't agree that inconsiderate driving is inconsiderate :pac:

Inconsiderate driving is inconsiderate.

Speeding is dangerous.

thebman

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Inconsiderate driving is inconsiderate.

Great and we are all in agreement that driving too slowly and holding up traffic is inconsiderate so you agree with most of the things posted on that topic yet argued with people on the point for some other reason known only to you as far as I can see.

thebullkf

Education and retraining is the key.

As is stiffer penalty's for breaking the law.

CPD's could be implemented that would reflect in cheaper insurance/ discounts on fuel maybe..?

nacimroc

thebullkf wrote: »

Education and retraining is the key.

As is stiffer penalty's for breaking the law.

CPD's could be implemented that would reflect in cheaper insurance/ discounts on fuel maybe..?

Of the 3, I think the education and re-testing especially is the key. I know I keep harping back to other countries, but other countries have gone through what we have years ago, tried all the steps we are trying now and have figured out better solutions.

We should just jump this learning curve we are going through and adopt their plans. In germany I believe you also have to do night driving as part of your test. In Sweden you have to drive a car on a skid plain to learn to control a car thats skidding.

From my personal experience young people drive better but faster. They observe seat belts, indicating, lanes better, but speed far more frequently. Drink driving has been proven to be a problem related to middle-age/older generation problem. Older people never had to drive on motorways or be tested on it so couldn't possibly know the proper way to drive on them.

Without re-testing/education, how could we expect people to understand what they never learned in the first place. Maybe if the gaurds prosecuted a 'few' people to make an example this would force people to pay more attention to the road.

On a side note. Speed camera vans should be painted in illuminous shiny paint made so visible it would be blinding. I passed a black one the other day. If gaurds/speed cameras are visible they get the message home to the thousands of cars that pass them that day. But, if they are painted black and hidden in ditches, they are simply teaching the offender ONLY and I see it as a revenue raising scheme only.

thebman

nacimroc wrote: »

Of the 3, I think the education and re-testing especially is the key. I know I keep harping back to other countries, but other countries have gone through what we have years ago, tried all the steps we are trying now and have figured out better solutions.

Which is again what I was saying earlier when I was told, only speeding matters and as long as we catch speeders, there is no problem essentially by other posters here.

We should just jump this learning curve we are going through and adopt their plans. In germany I believe you also have to do night driving as part of your test. In Sweden you have to drive a car on a skid plain to learn to control a car thats skidding.

And as I posted earlier, Britain has the best record on this and the safest roads and have a similar climate and culture to us. It should be easy for Ireland to use what they learned and we have good relations with them so we could even just bloody ask them and they'll be glad to help out I'm sure.

On a side note. Speed camera vans should be painted in illuminous shiny paint made so visible it would be blinding. I passed a black one the other day. If gaurds/speed cameras are visible they get the message home to the thousands of cars that pass them that day. But, if they are painted black and hidden in ditches, they are simply teaching the offender ONLY and I see it as a revenue raising scheme only.

I've never seen a black one, they've always been white and well marked. I liked the cardboard cutout ones they had for the motorways but only saw them the first few weeks and I've not seen them since then. I don't know why they stopped using them.

cyclopath2001

nacimroc wrote: »

From my personal experience young people drive better but faster. They observe seat belts, indicating, lanes better, but speed far more frequently. Drink driving has been proven to be a problem related to middle-age/older generation problem. Older people never had to drive on motorways or be tested on it so couldn't possibly know the proper way to drive on

And which group is involved more in accidents causing death or injury?

mistermouse

Lets face it a lot of young drivers see the ability to use a car as somethin to show off or impress others.

Its only when you learn to appreciate your licence and what it means does any driver respect it, that is proven by the increased chances of loosing it reflected in road stats, nothing else

The RSA/Gay Byrne is a waste of time, the NCT is nothing to do with it and the safety cameras like the NCT are revenue generating policies.

The whole thing is geared about generating revenue, but doing so in a way that is marketed as either being good citizens or legally enforcing things that have very little to do with road safety in a real way.

We have spent years being told to be good europeans and found out that means diddly squat and we have this whole 'safety' road message drawn up when we listened to sh1te from politicians.

Most women drivers for example may have lesser accidents but most older women drivers have no curteosy on the road at all

NCTs or Cameras will not stop 7 people getting into a car and crashing at 3am but they will generate revenue as designed - fact proved over the past years

Up until recently Govt Ministers had drivers in excellent cars - how does that make them any way whatsoever competent to make driving laws... did The former Taoiseah Bertie Ahern even have a licence?

JustinDee

The only deterrent that works in Ireland is to babysit the roads. The only time idiots on our roads behave is when there is police presence, cameras or both.
Any other time, the driver knows better and drives by their own convenient perceived set of rules.
It is beyond the reach of education. Drink driving was affected not because drivers felt guilty or more safety-conscious but because they didn't want to get caught.
As the Paddy behind the wheel won't listen to anyone, he has to be watched for the irresponsible and dangerous driver he is (or she, obviously).

cyclopath2001

nacimroc wrote: »

On a side note. Speed camera vans should be painted in illuminous shiny paint made so visible it would be blinding. I passed a black one the other day. If gaurds/speed cameras are visible they get the message home to the thousands of cars that pass them that day.

Some have said here that that causes drivers to 'jam on' and drive erratically when they see a speed trap. Others will flash their headlamps to warn fellow law breakers of the speed trap. And since the traps cannot be everywhere, people will continue to break the law where they believe they will not be caught.

nacimroc wrote: »

OnBut, if they are painted black and hidden in ditches, they are simply teaching the offender ONLY

Not at all, the offenders will grumble about it to their mates, who will sympathise and agree with the law breaker that it's a 'revenue raising exercise', but will drive below the limit anyway because they won't know where they'll be detected and don't want to lose their licences and maybe their livlihoods too.

BTW, how much net revenue is collected by speed cameras?

thebman

JustinDee wrote: »

The only deterrent that works in Ireland is to babysit the roads. The only time idiots on our roads behave is when there is police presence, cameras or both.
Any other time, the driver knows better and drives by their own convenient perceived set of rules.
It is beyond the reach of education. Drink driving was affected not because drivers felt guilty or more safety-conscious but because they didn't want to get caught.
As the Paddy behind the wheel won't listen to anyone, he has to be watched for the irresponsible and dangerous driver he is (or she, obviously).

You can't be serious when you suggest education doesn't work on the "paddies". What a ridiculous statement.

JustinDee

thebman wrote: »

You can't be serious when you suggest education doesn't work on the "paddies". What a ridiculous statement.

Its not ridiculous in the slightest. I explained why. If you think an ad or a driving course is going to push responsible driving as much as or more than enforcement and regulatory measures, you're deluded.

thebman

JustinDee wrote: »

Its not ridiculous in the slightest. I explained why. If you think an ad or a driving course is going to push responsible driving as much as or more than enforcement and regulatory measures, you're deluded.

Actually you explained why you have that opinion not why that is the case. Bit of a difference there.

I think basic reading into marketing and human psychology would change your opinion.

JustinDee

thebman wrote: »

Actually you explained why you have that opinion not why that is the case. Bit of a difference there.

I think basic reading into marketing and human psychology would change your opinion.

Rubbish. Only time the idiots on our roads refrain from their usual is when they fear being caught. You can instill all you like in theory or practical tests. Once a driving test is passed, the driver, as evident on Irish, will revert to type ie. Do what they can get away with. Patrol, observe and nab the effers and they won't. It really is that simple.

thebman

JustinDee wrote: »

Rubbish. Only time the idiots on our roads refrain from their usual is when they fear being caught. You can instill all you like in theory or practical tests. Once a driving test is passed, the driver, as evident on Irish, will revert to type ie. Do what they can get away with. Patrol, observe and nab the effers and they won't. It really is that simple.

And you believe this to be the case and be the case exclusively for Irish drivers. Interesting theory...

JustinDee

thebman wrote: »

And you believe this to be the case and be the case exclusively for Irish drivers. Interesting theory...

We are discussing Irish drivers, how utterly dreadful they are and what can be done to protect other people from their habits. The moral relativist approach on others being equally bad is bupkis. Not that the problem is exclusively Irish. I just said Irish drivers generally, day-to-day are woeful. Proof is on the road, literally

I've seen people refer to Swedish road safety measures in this thread as examples of what should be done. As if the fact that drivers sit in a classroom as part of their test is the solution to better road usage. Have these people even driven in Sweden?? How has police recruitment and funding gone in that country? The amount of police patrolling, say the E6, has nothing to do with it, I suppose.
Roll on with the TV ads campaign, get out the text books. Bound to work. As seen in erm...wait a sec...I'll just hit search for the umpteenth time...ah feck, can't find it.

oscarBravo

JustinDee wrote: »

I just said Irish drivers generally, day-to-day are woeful.

On that much, we agree. The difference is, you seem to believe that the only way to fix that is through punishment.

Which do you think is the better approach to getting people to use indicators on roundabouts - education or punishment? Which will improve the quality of driving in poor conditions including heavy rain and snow?

Enforcement is all very well for the lip service to speed limits. It doesn't do a single thing to change the fact that most Irish people seem to think that knowing how to make a car move forward means that they know how to drive.

thebman

JustinDee wrote: »

We are discussing Irish drivers, how utterly dreadful they are and what can be done to protect other people from their habits. The moral relativist approach on others being equally bad is bupkis. Not that the problem is exclusively Irish. I just said Irish drivers generally, day-to-day are woeful. Proof is on the road, literally

I've seen people refer to Swedish road safety measures in this thread as examples of what should be done. As if the fact that drivers sit in a classroom as part of their test is the solution to better road usage. Have these people even driven in Sweden?? How has police recruitment and funding gone in that country? The amount of police patrolling, say the E6, has nothing to do with it, I suppose.
Roll on with the TV ads campaign, get out the text books. Bound to work. As seen in erm...wait a sec...I'll just hit search for the umpteenth time...ah feck, can't find it.

Well when you refer to paddies driving, it sounds a bit like you think it is an exclusively Irish phenomenon TBH.

Education is part of the solution, you also need to enforce rules if there are people breaking them but not just a selection of them or centrally focus it around one particular punishment. What people are really discussing here (or trying to discuss) is how we an improve further on how we are doing so far.

One such way is to copy what other countries have done with better records than us like the UK who have the safest roads in the EU at the moment.
http://www.rac.co.uk/news-advice/motoring-news/post/2010/9/uk-roads-among-the-safest-in-world/

And run the Think campaigns as part of their education of road users. The reality is some users don't know what they are doing is wrong and when seeing it on TV, can casually change their habits once shown the proper way to do it. Enforcement is also necessary IMO but if you tell people what they are doing wrong and then enforce the rules then people don't feel like your out to get them. They then know they are in the wrong or change themselves because they were just ignorant of how they were supposed to do it before.

cyclopath2001

thebman wrote: »

Enforcement is also necessary IMO but if you tell people what they are doing wrong and then enforce the rules then people don't feel like your out to get them. They then know they are in the wrong or change themselves because they were just ignorant of how they were supposed to do it before.

True many drivers don't know about stopping on amber, and quite a few do not know indicating is required by law.

But, in the case of clearly posted speed limits reinforced by advertising campaigns, people think they know better and just make their own rules.

oscarBravo

Apropos, this was in today's Mail:

Slow drivers are one of the biggest dangers on the road and should be treated like speeders, a report says today.

Nearly a third of motorists have had a 'near miss' caused by someone travelling slowly.

JustinDee

thebman wrote: »

Well when you refer to paddies driving, it sounds a bit like you think it is an exclusively Irish phenomenon TBH

No, I just think the Irish are utterly selfish, inept and dangerous drivers in general.

cyclopath2001

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apropos, this was in today's Mail:

It says that just 143 accidents are attributable to slow drivers in a country where over 200,000 people were killed or injured on their roads.

Yet, 1 in 3 people claim near misses caused by slow drivers.

Does not compute.

oscarBravo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It says that just 143 accidents are attributable to slow drivers in a country where over 200,000 people were killed or injured on their roads.

Yet, 1 in 3 people claim near misses caused by slow drivers.

Does not compute.

What percentage of accidents are caused by stupidity?

nacimroc

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It says that just 143 accidents are attributable to slow drivers in a country where over 200,000 people were killed or injured on their roads.

Yet, 1 in 3 people claim near misses caused by slow drivers.

Does not compute.

Why are you so completely and utterly obsessed with speeding so far as to argue with anyone who says something else may be illegal. If I was to say which is worse murder or speed, you'd say speeding.

I understand you are a dublin cyclist therefore couldn't possibly understand the concept of road courtesy but still, I can't understand why you don't even want other illegal things to be prosecuted ?

As regards that survey, it is trying to show the fact slow driving causes accidents. Just because the slow driver wasn't involved doesn't mean they weren't the CAUSE!!

cyclopath2001

nacimroc wrote: »

Why are you so completely and utterly obsessed with speeding

I think its best that I ignore your personal attacking style, your stereotyping and your clumsy attempts to misrepresent my position.

Quite honestly, I find the diversionary and distracting tactics of those who attempt to to frustrate or dispute speed law enforcement measures to be simply disgusting.

Speeding is a core component of the seriousness of the outcome of any accident and happens to be, by a huge margin, the most popular form of law breakng among motorists.

oscarBravo

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Speeding is a core compenent of the seriousness of any accident...

Nonsense. Unless you're conflating two different meanings of "speeding", which is just intellectually dishonest.

jmayo

Chuck the Buck wrote: »

Can you give me 5 good real world examples where stomping on the accelerator will save you?

Driving away from lava flows. e.g Iceland
Seriously if you are overtakign and something appears then you are often better off accelerating than braking.
You can read the road in front better than the one behind.
And please don't come back with some cr** that you should not have been overtaking in the first place.

thebman wrote: »

I don't know if it is the most serious or most popular but I do believe it is the most ignored.

I have never seen someone being pulled over or heard of someone being done for driving too slowly in this country or for having 5-10 cars behind them trying to get by on a single carriageway.

Mayo farmer on road to Newport as mentione dby OB is the best and only example I can thingk of.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't help but notice that all these retired nurses and guards who are doing the world a favour by slowing lunatics like me down to 70km/h have a tendency to continue doing 70 once they pass a 50km/h speed limit sign. It's almost as if they don't know or care what speed they're doing, or what the current speed limit is.

On the plus side, once they enter that 50km/h zone they instantly become homicidal lunatics who should be removed from the road before they kill us all.

This is my huge pet hate. :mad::mad:

The number of times I have passed people between villages (e.g on N4 in Westmeath, on old N9 in Kildare) who were going 5 to 10 miles below speed limit and then proceeded to leave them in the distance only to have them up my ass leaving the next village that they proceeded to drive through 10 to 15 miles above the limit.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Inconsiderate driving is inconsiderate.

Speeding is dangerous.

Has it ever croseed your narrow mind that inconsiderate driving leads to dangerous driving.

I'll lay a bet with anyone that you are the type of driver that will either drive 10 miles below limit on national route or be the driver immediately behing such a driver and that you will see no issue with having a queue of 20 to 30 cars behind.

mistermouse wrote: »

Lets face it a lot of young drivers see the ability to use a car as somethin to show off or impress others.

Its only when you learn to appreciate your licence and what it means does any driver respect it, that is proven by the increased chances of loosing it reflected in road stats, nothing else

The RSA/Gay Byrne is a waste of time, the NCT is nothing to do with it and the safety cameras like the NCT are revenue generating policies.

The whole thing is geared about generating revenue, but doing so in a way that is marketed as either being good citizens or legally enforcing things that have very little to do with road safety in a real way.

We have spent years being told to be good europeans and found out that means diddly squat and we have this whole 'safety' road message drawn up when we listened to sh1te from politicians.

Most women drivers for example may have lesser accidents but most older women drivers have no curteosy on the road at all

Not just old women, some of the young ones are inconsiderate weapons as well.
So also with men.

mistermouse wrote: »

NCTs or Cameras will not stop 7 people getting into a car and crashing at 3am but they will generate revenue as designed - fact proved over the past years

I once had this discussion with Garda who had pulled me over.
His answer was that they didn't have the resources to carry out speed checks etc in middle of the night.

In all the miles I have driven around Ireland, a fair few at 1/2am or 5/6 am in the morning I have only seen 3 speed checks and two of those were in villages (Charlestown and Enfield).

mistermouse wrote: »

Up until recently Govt Ministers had drivers in excellent cars - how does that make them any way whatsoever competent to make driving laws... did The former Taoiseah Bertie Ahern even have a licence?

Ehh bertie did not have license since us smucks p[aid for his chauffeur for over 20 years.

thebman

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It says that just 143 accidents are attributable to slow drivers in a country where over 200,000 people were killed or injured on their roads.

Yet, 1 in 3 people claim near misses caused by slow drivers.

Does not compute.

Why exactly does it not compute?

Padraig Mor

Lads, you're wasting your time arguing with cyclopath2001. The guy (I think) has been trolling the **** out of the Motors forum for years with the same, disturbingly fixated, guff for years now. Any and all attempts to demonstrate the value of a holistic approach to road safety are rebuffed with a Chinese-finger-trap-esque variety of bizarre arguments and dubious interpretations of data.

I've never argued against the use of speed traps in any form - frankly, if you're breaking the law, you're breaking the law and have no cause for complaint. I DO object though to the portrayal of 'clamping down on speeding' as some sort of panacea for reducing illegal behaviour on Irish roads. As I've stated before, while speed in excess of the speed limit is of obvious importance to the outcome of a collision, speeding is a very rare CAUSE of fatal collisions, being the primary causative factor in approx 5% of such collisions. The primary cause of accidents is plain and simple bad driving (with the number one cause of collisions being one car being on the wrong side of the road). The enforcement focus on speeding is simply lazy policing. It's EASY to catch speeders, it's EASY to prosecute them, it's EASY to say 'speed kills'. Just a few weeks ago a Garda went on Crimecall and showed a video of a driver overtaking on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend and claim the problem was the driver's speed. It's a lot harder to go back to basics with the country's pathetic driver education system, to implement proper testing (including repeat tests every 10 yrs), to properly enforce ALL driving laws. Tackling speeding, but not the underlying causes of accidents, is simply putting a plaster on a gaping wound.

I 'get' why politicians and Gardai constantly push the 'speeding' agenda - it's easier for them to do this rather than tackle the problem properly and make the hard decisions, as above. For lay people, such as cyclopath2001, who are utterly fixated on speeding to the virtual exclusion of all else, I find the reasons behind this illogical behaviour hard to grasp. Cyclopath states (without citing a reference) that speeding is "by a huge margin, the most popular form of law breakng among motorists" - is it? He and another poster have used the penalty points stats to make the case that other forms of illegal behaviour are also enforced. Yet a quick glance at the stats will show that points given for speeding dwarf points given for any other offence. Is it the case that speeding is in fact "the most popular form of law breaking among motorists"? I'm not convinced that it is. I drive a fair bit and don't find that that many drivers speed, and those exceeding the limit by a considerable margin (i.e. flahing it) are very rare. Much of my daily route consists of motorway standard HQ dual carriageway with a 100 or 120 limit and I find that most drivers stay within these limits. My experience is that other road laws are FAR more routinely flouted than the speed limit. Give it a few months and, by my estimate, 30%+ of cars travelling in the darkness of the winter months will not be correctly lighted. Yet has ANY motorist been prosecuted for having broken lights or using foglights in non-foggy conditions, both expressly in violition of the law? Not that I've heard. I go through a few roundabouts every day and reckon that, conservatively, 75% of drivers fail to indicate correctly. How many drivers have been 'done' for this? None? These are just two examples of illegal activities by drivers which are far more commonplace than speeding. Yet cyclopath and others, despite paying lip service to proper road safety enforcement, can only rehash the same tired, lazy arguments re speeding.

Cyclopath's idea re computer monitoring of drivers is interesting I'll concede, if unlikely to happen any time soon. Yet, would it not be easier (and cheaper) if the Gardai simply drove around and enforced all traffic laws? I routinely see road law violations such as the above, and far more serious ones, ignored by Garda drivers - and I'm not talking about Gardai under 'blues and twos' either. Why? Hell, I've often seen Gardai break road law without reason and, doubtless, without consequence. I have personally reported serious law breaking by drivers and found Gardai to be entirely uninterested. If driving law is not enforced, it's natural to expect that some/many drivers will choose to ignore it.

These 'speed campaigners' also often have a tendency to excuse law breaking by other road users or those that they claim to be 'vulnerable'. Cyclopath claims that incosiderate driving is "[simply] inconsiderate". Yet this ignores the fact that inconsiderate driving is illegal. The majority of city cyclists routinely ignore laws relating to traffic lights etc yet their behaviour is often excused by those with speeding myopia - "it must have been a driver's fault the cyclist broke the law" etc. Such ascribing of blame by a guilty party onto another is often seen in other law breakers - rapists who claim their victims "made them do it" etc. We routinely hear of criticism of motorists in relation to accidents involving pedestrians which completely ignores the fact that many of these pedestrains were falling around the road drunk. We have already seen cyclopath intimate that most/all slow drivers are some form of paragon of virtue - a retired nurse, perhaps, or a wheelchair taxi maybe. He has no evidence of this of course and it's just as likely that they are simply incompetent drivers (or should that be 'vulnerable'?). Some of these are doubtless 'speed kills' obsessives, determined to make people 'slow down'. Ironic really, as motorists 'trying to teach a lesson' are regarded by police as among those most likely to be involved in an accident.

cyclopath2001

Padraig Mor wrote: »

As I've stated before, while speed in excess of the speed limit is of obvious importance to the outcome of a collision, speeding is a very rare CAUSE of fatal collisions,

You mean of course 'primary cause'. And this ignores that where speed is not the primary cause of the accident, it will have played a major contributory factor by affecting reaction time for defensive manouvres and most importantly, it will be the primary cause of any injury. Even speed not in excess of the speed limit poses a risk if it is not appropriate to the conditions.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

For lay people, such as cyclopath2001, who are utterly fixated on speeding to the virtual exclusion of all else, I find the reasons behind this illogical behaviour hard to grasp.

I would hope that you read the road better than you read my postings.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Cyclopath states (without citing a reference) that speeding is "by a huge margin, the most popular form of law breakng among motorists" - is it?

Check with the RSA. Depending on road type the speed limit is exceeded by between 16% and 86% of motorists. And unlike, for example amber light offences or failing to indicate, takes place constantly rather than intermittantly.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Cyclopath claims that incosiderate driving is "[simply] inconsiderate".

Why do you insert the word 'simply'? That's not what was written. Don't put words in my mouth.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Yet this ignores the fact that inconsiderate driving is illegal[/I

Alas many things done by motorists are inconsiderate but are not actually illegal, unless, you want to prosecute people for clogging up city streets by using mostly empty cars or parking on the roadway outside of clearway hours.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

The majority of city cyclists routinely ignore laws ....yet their behaviour is often excused by those with speeding myopia

Source for these excuses?

Padraig Mor wrote: »

rapists who claim their victims "made them do it" etc.

Or 'slow drivers make drivers impatient and cause them to overtake dangerously' (see the Daily Mail)

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Ironic really, as motorists 'trying to teach a lesson' are regarded by police as among those most likely to be involved in an accident.

Source?

ei.sdraob

jmayo wrote: »

And please don't come back with some cr** that you should not have been overtaking in the first place.

Hes never been stuck behind a tractor or worse as Sunday Mass driver :eek:

Padraig Mor

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

You mean of course 'primary cause'. And this ignores that where speed is not the primary cause of the accident, it will have played a major contributory factor by affecting reaction time for defensive manouvres and most importantly, it will be the primary cause of any injury. Even speed not in excess of the speed limit poses a risk if it is not appropriate to the conditions.

I've always agreed that speed is of critical importance to the outcome of an accident - of course it is. But that does not change the fact that very few accidents are directly caused by speeding. I fail to see the logic behind focussing most road safety efforts on something which is well down the list of collision causes - it simply does not make sense. Agree as well re the potential for speeds below the limit to be dangerous - yet another reason why speed cameras are a futile exercise in window dressing.

I would hope that you read the road better than you read my postings.

I've read many of your postings on this topic over the years and I know what to expect. Are you going to trundle out your hoary old chestnut any time soon re your belief that it is illegal for a slow motorist to show consideration for other drivers by briefly pulling into the hard shoulder to let them past?

Check with the RSA. Depending on road type the speed limit is exceeded by between 16% and 86% of motorists. And unlike, for example amber light offences or failing to indicate, takes place constantly rather than intermittantly.

I'll accept that some road types (e.g. high quality roads with a 60km/h limit for whatever reason) will see a large proportion of motorists exceeding the limit. But to suggest that offences such as incorrect indicating or being an amber gambler are 'intermittent' or in some way 'occasional' is frankly laughable. Why not put up red light cameras at junctions - surely they could justify their cost as much as speed cameras do? Why don't the Gardai give a penalty point to every driver they see failing to indicate? Simple - the very clear, unwritten, message from 'official Ireland' is that, as long as you don't speed or drink drive, you can do whatever the hell you like on the roads with little fear of punishment (and at that, drink driving enforcement is patchy at best and a pathetic shadow of what it should be).

Why do you insert the word 'simply'? That's not what was written. Don't put words in my mouth.

It may not have been written but it was the unequivocal, deliberate implication of your post. I inserted the word 'simply' in my post to give the context of your post. You clearly believe that inconsiderate driving is not an important issue compared to speeding. On the other hand, I believe the equal enforcement of all road safety laws is the only genuine road safety strategy. (to emphasise: I believe in the strict enforcement of all laws, including speeding).

Alas many things done by motorists are inconsiderate but are not actually illegal, unless, you want to prosecute people for clogging up city streets by using mostly empty cars or parking on the roadway outside of clearway hours.

I guess we could go round in circles for days arguing the interpretation of 'inconsiderate'. Regarding the topic you were referring to - drivers who refuse to drive at/near the speed limit where conditions allow - your clear implication is that this, while being inconsiderate, is not 'dangerous'. I believe, however, that this is illegal, as testified by the earlier quoted prosecution of a tractor driver and the fact that you will be marked down in a driving test for failing to drive at an adequate speed.

Source for these excuses?

Many, many posts on this site over the years blaming everyone except the cyclist themselves for their illegal, dangerous behaviour.

Or 'slow drivers make drivers impatient and cause them to overtake dangerously' (see the Daily Mail)

Kinda my point really. Those indulging in illegal behaviour will often seek to place the blame on another party.

Source?

The Roadcraft manual (IIRC motorists 'teaching others a lesson' are listed as being the MOST likely of any drivers to be involved in an accident but will need to pull it out to confirm). [for those unfamiliar: Roadcraft is the UK police driver's handbook and focusses on proper, safe driving (not high speed pursuits etc) such as observation, correct gaps, how to control a skid etc. It is often read by 'civvies' seeking to improve their ability to drive safely.]

cyclopath2001

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I fail to see the logic behind focussing most road safety efforts on something which is well down the list of collision causes

I cannot understand why you fail to grasp that road safety measures are not just about the primary causes of accidents, but, for example, about how speed affects an otherwise blameless party's ability to react and the possible death and injury that will occur as a direct result of the speed of the impact. It's a hugely significant factor.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Are you going to trundle out your hoary old chestnut any time soon re your belief that it is illegal for a slow motorist to show consideration for other drivers by briefly pulling into the hard shoulder to let them past?

More misquoting and not even from this thread. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel. What you describe is not illegal, as long as the driver, pulls over, stops, does not continue to drive along on the hard shoulder. That is what the judge expected the tractor driver to do.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

But to suggest that offences such as incorrect indicating or being an amber gambler are 'intermittent' or in some way 'occasional' is frankly laughable.

Road safety is no laughing matter. When a driver speeds, he/she does it for prolonged periods creating a continuous risk. Whereas, in practice an amber light or indicating offence can only only occur every few hundred metres. I would certainly be keen for all offences to be prosecuted, but speed is so fundamental to death and injury outcomes that it is logical that it should be prioritised when resources are scarce.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

It may not have been written but it was the unequivocal, deliberate implication of your post. I inserted the word 'simply' in my post to give the context of your post.

If that was what I meant, I would have siad it. You falsified a quote to support your argument.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Many, many posts on this site over the years blaming everyone except the cyclist themselves for their illegal, dangerous behaviour.

More distraction tactics and not one example.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

The Roadcraft manual (IIRC motorists 'teaching others a lesson' are listed as being the MOST likely of any drivers to be involved in an accident but will need to pull it out to confirm).

It's certainly not a good way to drive and is a valid opinion even if not based on statistics. Even so, it does not make any difference to the elephant in the room - excessive, illegal and inappropriate speed.

JustinDee

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Hes never been stuck behind a tractor or worse as Sunday Mass driver :eek:

Or those idiot cycling clubs riding three across the road.

Padraig Mor

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I cannot understand why you fail to grasp that road safety measures are not just about the primary causes of accidents, but, for example, about how speed affects an otherwise blameless party's ability to react and the possible death and injury that will occur as a direct result of the speed of the impact. It's a hugely significant factor.

And where have I said otherwise? I've always argued that speed laws should be enforced - but not only speed laws, as is currently pretty much the case.

More misquoting and not even from this thread. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel. What you describe is not illegal, as long as the driver does not drive continuously along on the hard shoulder.

I know it's not from this thread. It's just an example to show that I DO read your posts, contrary to your suggestion. You have repeatedly argued in Motors that slow drivers should not move to the hard shoulder to let faster drivers by as you believe it to be illegal. As is obvious from this thread, you believe that slow drivers should be treated as 'vulnerable' and that other drivers should bend over backwards to accomodate them. You further imply that 'confident, competent' drivers are some form of speeding scourge on the roads. This outlook betrays a victim complex whereby drivers who have the competence to drive at an appropriate speed are something to be feared - a legacy no doubt of our inadequate driver training system and road safety strategy which focusses most of its energy on just one of the many illegal behaviours on our roads. ALL drivers should be confident and competent and being so is something that all drivers should aspire to. In Germany if you fail your test three times you get sent to a psychologist to assess whether you should be driving at all; in Ireland you get sent back out on the road!

Road safety is no laughing matter. When a driver speeds, he/she does it for prolonged periods. Whereas, in practice an amber light or indicating offence can only only occur every few hundred metres.

Obfuscation.

I would certainly be keen for all offences to be prosecuted,

I don't believe you are. You pay occasional lip service to full enforcement but your postings betray a singular obsession with speeding. Why have I never seen you say there should be a clampdown on cars with dodgy lighting? Why have you not suggested a requirement for the use of dipped headlights or DRLs during the day - a proven, cost free method of saving lives? Why do I not see you post that Gardai should tackle the huge amount of rural drink driving, the surface of which has only been scratched?

but speed is so fundamental to death and injury outcomes that it is logical that it should be prioritised when resources are scarce.

I hadn't noted a particular scarcity of resources until the last couple of years! Why not divert some of the massive resources devoted to speeding to getting more Traffic Corps on the road, enforcing ALL road legislation? The speed focus is lazy window dressing to make it look like there is an actual road safety strategy.

You falsified a quote to support your argument.

If I had falsified your quote I would have used round brackets; I used square brackets to provide the explicit context of your own post. My point stands.

It's certainly not a good way to drive and is a valid opinion even if not based on statistics. Even so, it does not make any difference to the elephant in the room - excessive, illegal and inappropriate speed.

Speeding is the elephant in the room?! I would have thought that everything else bar speeding was what was being ignored!


What is the Irish obsession with speeding? Cyclopath himself acknowledges huge problems with "not stopping on amber...... stopping on pedestrian crossings, illegal overtaking, not indicating, driving in cycle tracks, going the wrong way around roundabouts, driving on median strips, using a cellphone while driving or illegal parking" yet seems to believe that resources should NOT be used to tackle these problems, rather used to 'clamp down' on just one aspect of road safety.

cyclopath2001

Padraig Mor wrote: »

And where have I said otherwise? I've always argued that speed laws should be enforced - but not only speed laws, as is currently pretty much the case.

The point at issue is this:

Padraig Mor wrote: »

....very few accidents are directly caused by speeding. I fail to see the logic behind focussing most road safety efforts on something which is well down the list of collision causes

You ignore speed as a contributory, but not primary cause and pay lip service the the effect of speed on the outcome. Effectively, refusing to acknowledge that speed is a core issue.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

You have repeatedly argued in Motors that slow drivers should not move to the hard shoulder to let faster drivers by as you believe it to be illegal.

More misquoting. The legal position is that you must not drive on the hard shoulder, you may stop on it, but it is not a driving lane. It's quite OK to pull over and stop in an appropriate place. Forcing people off the road is something I and many others would find unacceptable.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

If I had falsified your quote I would have used round brackets; I used square brackets to provide the explicit context of your own post. My point stands.

You adjusted the meaning to suit yourself.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Speeding is the elephant in the room?! I would have thought that everything else bar speeding was what was being ignored!

People are fined for many other offences, not enough admittedly, but speeding due to its seriousness (see above) takes up a lot of time and resources. This is not helped at all by measures taken by some elements of the motoring community to frustrate law-enforcement measures.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

What is the Irish obsession with speeding?

I ask the same question when I read the statistics.

jmayo

JustinDee wrote: »

Or those idiot cycling clubs riding three across the road.

Hey you must have been driving in Wicklow recently.
Fookers clone or something at weekends.
I don't mind someone cycling along at side of road, but two or three abreast and wandering all over road because they think the hill is bloody Alpe d'Heuz is pulling the p***.

The best laugh I have had recently was watching a few of them stuck behind a tractor and slurry spreader.
It was going just fast enough that they couldn't sprint past it.
If I was the farmer I would have been severily tempted to accidently switch on the spreader.

JustinDee

jmayo wrote: »

Hey you must have been driving in Wicklow recently.
Fookers clone or something at weekends.
I don't mind someone cycling along at side of road, but two or three abreast and wandering all over road because they think the hill is bloody Alpe d'Heuz is pulling the p***.

The best laugh I have had recently was watching a few of them stuck behind a tractor and slurry spreader.
It was going just fast enough that they couldn't sprint past it.
If I was the farmer I would have been severily tempted to accidently switch on the spreader.

Every sunday, roads between Maynooth, Celbridge and Kilcock chocked with lycra and spandex-clad cyclists clogging up the road with their midlife crises. Its incredible how ignorant they are of the rules of the road. If you want to be treated as traffic then f***ing behave like traffic.

Iwannahurl

AFAIK it is not illegal to cycle two abreast.

Three is going (one) too far, though.

Two bikes side by side still don't take up as much road space as a car...

cyclopath2001

Iwannahurl wrote: »

AFAIK it is not illegal to cycle two abreast.

This is true in law, but the RoTR suggests being nice to people whose choice in transport demands more roadspace.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Three is going (one) too far, though.

Three abreast is allowed, in the law, if the outside rider is overtaking. If not, then it would be illegal to park a car on the roadway as the effect would be the same if even a single rider tried to overtake it.