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

Going Forward wrote: »

That makes no sense!
A truck is not defined by its length ; its classed by its weight.

SeanW wrote: »

Really Silly Agency and its insatiable appetite for regulations.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Higher speed increases both actual and perceived risk. The effects of this on vulnerable road users outside the car should not be dismissed or minimised. Reducing average speed overall reduces both the actual risk and vulnerable road users' perception of danger, which tends to encourage more walking and cycling, which in turn makes walking and cycling safer.

Speed cameras help to raise awareness and reduce average speed, so they make an important contribution to road safety overall.

There is no reason to doubt the effectiveness or the benefits of speed cameras.

Your claim that you "never see anyone afraid to cross the road in a town" cannot be relied on, IMO. I see it frequently, and in my experience as a pedestrian (often pushing a buggy) there are far too few pedestrian priority crossings.

In any any case, maybe you don't see them because they're not there? For example, there has been a precipitous drop in the level of active commuting in Ireland over the last few decades, including among schoolchildren. What is one of the most common reasons given for not letting the kids walk to school? Danger on the roads.

Although the number of deaths among car occupants has been decreasing over time, the same cannot always be said of other road users. For instance, there was a 27% increase in the number of pedestrians killed in the five year period between 2003 and 2007.

Earlier this years the HSE published a report which showed that the level of hospital admissions for road traffic collision injuries was 3.5 times larger overall than what was reported in Garda statistics.

That's injuries serious enough to require hospitalisation, not just those mild enough to be treated without admission to hospital or without recourse to A&E departments.

Significantly, the HSE data show that the number of injured cyclists admitted to hospital is nearly ten times the level suggested by Garda stats.

Tragedy wrote: »

'Vulnerable' road user? Perceived risk? Utter nonsense. The paper linked talks about the relationship between amount of walkers/cyclists and motorists, and how varying amounts of non-motorist road users reduce or increase the risk of accidents. Nothing about 'vulnerable' road users, perceived risk, or the social ills instilled in vulnerable pedestrians(what the ****? seriously?)

Are you suggesting pedestrians (among them elderly people and children) and cyclists share the same level of exposure to actual and peceived risk as motorists encased in metal boxes, fastened in with seatbelts and with the added protection of airbags? The sole purpose of my citing that paper was to make the point that pedestrians and cyclists are deterred by real and perceived risk, and when measures are put in place to encourage them (such as speed reduction) the number of such active commuters may rise, which in turn can may walking and cycling safer. It's a virtuous cycle. Quite a clear line of thought, IMO.

Incidentally, the RSA says that vulnerable road users are pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists, and that this cohort accounted for 36% of fatalities and 19% of injuries in 2005.

Why do we want to reduce average speed, when I'm not aware of a single Irish road where the average speed is above the speed limit?
You can significantly reduce average speed without reducing the amount of people speeding(or how much by).


I'm afraid I have little or no idea what you are trying to suggest there.

Higher speed increases both the risk of a collision and the severity of any collision that does occur. Reducing speed overall therefore reduces the risk overall. That's how 30 km/h zones work, for example.

As for your apparent belief that there isn't a "single Irish road where the average speed is above the speed limit", here is an excerpt from the RSA's Free Speed Survey 2008 (which apparently also found a very low level of speeding on residential streets):

77.8% of car drivers surveyed exceeded the 50km/h limit on urban national roads, a decrease of 8% on 2007 figures
However, 53% of these drivers exceeded the speed limit by 10km/h or more
The average speed of cars on urban national roads was about 10 km/h above the 50 km/h posted speed limit. Furthermore, only 19.9% of drivers were observed travelling below the speed limit and 6.3% were travelling between 80 and 100 km/h
On urban arterial roads with a 50km/h speed limit, the number of cars exceeding the speed limit increased from 40% in 2007 to 70% in 2008.

His claim can't be relied on(in your opinion), because (in your opinion) your opinion is more valid? You don't see a problem with that, no?
As a pedestrian 99% of the time and a motorist 1% of the time, I'd side more with him than you.

I'm not asking for my opinion to be relied on. I'm saying I disagree. Furthermore, surveys and consultations related to Smarter Travel applications have emphasised the need for more pedestrian facilities, not maintenance of the status quo and certainly not a reduction. I think you'll find that national programmes such as Smarter Travel don't agree with either of you, no matter how confident you are in your beliefs.


What is the most common real reason for not letting the kids walk to school? Laziness. How many parents are going to admit that they won't let their precious darlings walk to school because their precious darlings are lazy? Not many, if any.

I don't doubt for a moment that much of Ireland's car culture is associated with laziness. Also, IMO it could be potentially counterproductive to overemphasise danger when trying to promote walking and cycling. However, it remains the case that safety concerns and other deterrents are recurring issues when active travel comes up for discussion. Here is an example from the Smarter Travel website.


Lying with statistics yet again, quelle surprise.

Personal attack again, plus ça change.


Pedestrian deaths have broadly fallen since 1998, from 114 to 40 in 2009.

114 > 92 > 85 > 89 > 86 > 64 > 70 > 74 > 73 > 81 > 49 > 40
The above is statistically significant and represents a statistical trend.

What I said was "the same cannot always be said of other road users" and to illustrate this I gave a "for instance" which referred to a specific time period.

The key point stands, which is that there has been a precipitous drop in the level of active travel in Ireland over the last few decades, including and perhaps especially among schoolchildren. Whether you agree with it or not, or like it or not, it remains the case that safety concerns are often cited. Here's one small example (left column on page 2).


Elsewhere, reported cyclist injuries are broadly down over the last 12 years(although as there are no metrics on how many total cyclists there are, we can't really tell by how much) and motorcyclist injuries have almost halved.

Which injuries have been increasing over time, pray tell?


Ireland's road safety record has been improving over time, which is a welcome development. Measures such as penalty points, reduced BAC limits and random breath testing are all helpful. Now we have increased speed surveillance. That's what I call progress.


"Specialist in public health medicine in HSE Dublin North East Dr Declan Bedford said the figure was “not unexpected”, given that statistics on injuries arising from road traffic incidents were underestimated internationally."

Do you understand what the word significant means? What's significant about your apparently significant statement?


Except the "not unexpected" figures did not become apparent until the research was done and the report published, otherwise they might not have bothered, would they? A tenfold difference between the Garda stats for injured cyclists versus the hospital admissions figures is not insignificant.

SeanW wrote: »

Pwned.

You were caught red handed trying to decieve people here...

...people with extremist agendas.

... civil liberties ...