[Article] The only way to kill speed is to capture it on camera

Zaph0d

Article by Feargal Quinn in the Irish Times, advocating speed cameras everywhere.

By making the right investment, we can immediately cut our road deaths to the lowest levels of any country in the world. As a businessman, I am attracted by the fact that the return on this investment would be both sizeable and fast.

We all felt a burst of euphoria following the drop in road deaths shortly after the penalty points were introduced. This has now given way to despair as the death figures have steadily climbed up again. For many, this despair has turned into a belief that penalty points have proved a failure. I believe that conclusion is utterly wrong.

In the four months after penalty points came in, road deaths dropped to an average of 21 a month. This was half the 1997 level that provoked the creation of the National Road Safety Strategy. Overnight, it brought Ireland into line with the best-performing countries worldwide on road safety.

It is hard to over-estimate the significance of this. After years of wringing our hands, we had finally found the lever to change driver behaviour and reduce dramatically the number of road deaths.

The single lever was the fear of losing your licence as a result of speeding. That fear was now proven highly effective, in sharp contrast to the limited effect brought about by years of advertising and educational efforts. Against all logic, the fear of losing one's licence proved more effective than even the fear of being killed or maimed.

But the effect didn't last very long. After the first months, the deaths began to climb again - and have done so continuously ever since, heading back towards the levels that applied before penalty points came into existence.

In the year to the end of August, the average monthly death toll was 30.5. In August alone it was 36.

September will bring a further increase in the moving annual total of monthly fatalities: the deadly trend is all one-way.

A recent survey showed that more than one third of motorists admitted to regular speeding.

Unless we take effective action, what is to stop the level climbing back to 40 a month?

However, a positive side is revealed when we look behind these figures. First, the chain of cause and effect is perfectly clear: the initial change in driving behaviour came directly from a belief that speeding would result in losing your licence. (Not an unreasonable belief, in view of all the hype around penalty points.)

What happened after four months? Simply this. People realised the level of implementation was so low that the connection between speeding and losing your licence was broken.

Motorists judged that their chances of getting away with speeding were extremely high. They relaxed their behaviour accordingly.

For the few months that people believed there was a high chance of being caught speeding, they radically changed their behaviour. However, as soon as they realised how small was the chance of being caught, the deterrent effect of penalty points began to fade.

Not only was the implementation of penalty points inadequate, it was also uneven. Very few speed checks are carried out at the times of highest risk (weekend nights from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m.) and still fewer at the places of highest risk (single-carriageway country roads).

The lesson is clear. Fear of losing one's licence is an effective deterrent. So we should focus on making the connection between speeding and loss of licence more certain.

We can cut the level of deaths back to what we achieved in the early days of penalty points by doing just one thing - convincing people that their chance of being caught is too high to make the risk worthwhile.

How to do this? More Garda resources? A dedicated Road Traffic Corps? Few would entertain the hope that either will happen in the foreseeable future. But there is one effective solution that is available, if we have the courage to invest heavily enough in it. This is speed cameras, which record the number of any speeding vehicle that passes before them.

They work 24 hours a day, and don't need overtime.

They can be relocated in a short period of time, multiplying the number of places where speeding motorists can be detected.

Their deterrent effect can be multiplied again with cheap dummy cameras, where the driver does not know whether he is being monitored or not.

Perhaps most significantly of all, we can have speed cameras simply by writing a cheque and letting the private sector deliver the service.

Speed cameras are on the agenda, but my fear is that the central point about them will be lost: unless they create a high possibility of being caught, the investment will be wasted. Drivers are not fools, and will quickly make up their minds about this.

So in investing in speed cameras, we must not pinch pennies. We must blanket the whole country, not just the easy targets so beloved of gardaí with speed guns.

We must invest enough to create an inevitable connection between speeding and losing your licence.

How much should we spend? Well, let's remember what we stand to gain. Research by Dr Peter Bacon suggests that the all-in cost to the community of a road fatality is, very roughly, €1 million. Reducing road deaths from 31 per month to 20 would save the community €11 million, or €132 million a year.

We are clearly talking real money here, especially since the cost of deaths is only a part of the cost. The full road accident bill comes to a lot more than this, when we include the thousands of injuries which are a main contributor to the crisis in accident and emergency services in our hospitals.

But the cost of fatalities should give us a ballpark figure of how much we should be prepared to invest. My guess is that the arithmetic here allows more than enough scope to do the job with speed cameras properly, increasing the possibility of being caught for speeding to a near certainty.

John R

Sounds more like someone advocating a way to make money and dressing it up as some kind of righteous crusade.

Zaph0d

Whatever about his motive for making the argument, what about the argument itself? Should we cover the country in speed cameras?

John R

No.

Speed cameras only reduce speed in the imediate vacinity of speed cameras.

secret_squirrel

He talks about speeding like its the one and only cause of road deaths, when I would lay good odds that its not even a factor in a high proportion of them.

Especially as cameras only deal with speeding as in breaking the speed limit, rather than driving within the speed limit but too fast for the circumstances.

Simplistic solution to a complex problem where speed is just one of many factors.

And look how well having hundreds of camera's hasn't worked in the UK.

jesus_thats_gre

The bollox can barely run a supermarket, nevermind developing a road safety campaign..



Ps: I doubt its the Feargal Quinn of Superquinn, but fook it anyway

cyclopath2001

>>The only way to kill speed is to capture it on camera<<

I disagree, there is another way: Fit satellite tracking systems in cars, that'll make it possible to detect inappropriate driving everywhere.

Instead of punishing a driver for one mistake or unintentional lapse, the whole driving style could be examined. Constantly driving over the limit, too much accelerating & braking, not lighting up, breaking the lights, stopping in box junctions, dangerous parking, not using indicators could all be monitored. This would help transfer insurance premium costs to the riskiest drivers while rewarding the safe ones.

Unless we get tough on road terrorists, people will continue to be killed and injured. People will continue to be afraid to cycle or walk.

The recovery of stolen vehicles would be simpler too as the location of the car would be known and this would save a lot of Garda time.

So, insurance premiums would come down, traffic flow would improve and quality of life would be better.

jesus_thats_gre

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Unless we get tough on road terrorists,

Dramatic!!

Tommy Vercetti

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

The bollox can barely run a supermarket, nevermind developing a road safety campaign..



Ps: I doubt its the Feargal Quinn of Superquinn, but fook it anyway

Yes, it's him alright, that unelected waste of taxpayers money from the Seanad.

He gave his game away here:

Perhaps most significantly of all, we can have speed cameras simply by writing a cheque and letting the private sector deliver the service.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if he employs a chauffeur, such is his ignorance on the subject. Not once did he even mention driver education, or dangerous driving, or drunk driving, or inappropriate speed.

Tommy Vercetti

cyclopath2001 wrote:

>>The only way to kill speed is to capture it on camera<<

I disagree, there is another way: Fit satellite tracking systems in cars, that'll make it possible to detect inappropriate driving everywhere.

Instead of punishing a driver for one mistake or unintentional lapse, the whole driving style could be examined. Constantly driving over the limit, too much accelerating & braking, not lighting up, breaking the lights, stopping in box junctions, dangerous parking, not using indicators could all be monitored. This would help transfer insurance premium costs to the riskiest drivers while rewarding the safe ones.

It would be cheaper to put a Garda in every car. Have you got any realistic proposals?

cyclopath2001

>>It would be cheaper to put a Garda in every car. Have you got any realistic proposals?<<

This is realistic. Satellite tracking is already used with hire cars in the US and some Irish drivers are already using such a system to get reduced premiums. It's also used to protect expensive cars.

It's about time Ireland took the initiative on road safety & showed the world that the problem can be solved.

Why do you say it would be cheaper to put a Garda in every car? I guess putting a Garda in each car (24x7) would cost about 150,000 euro annually but these devices cost far less than that or they would not already be in use.

The cost would be offset by reduced insurance costs for safe drivers. If road pricing were introduced it would allow lower taxes to be charged to drivers who drive less.

We already accept video monitoring in malls where people are rarely killed or maimed, why not on our roads?

C.

cyclopath2001

>>Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclopath2001
Unless we get tough on road terrorists,
Dramatic!!<<

Apt.

More people have been killed by violently on the roads than through terrorism. Drivers routinely intimidate pedestrians & cyclists and violate their rights People are afraid, they are terrorised.


C.

secret_squirrel

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Fit satellite tracking systems in cars, that'll make it possible to detect inappropriate driving everywhere.

Lets fit them to cyclists and pedestrians whilst we're at it - why should car drivers be singled out. Every day you see plenty of cyclists and walkers doing dumb dangerous things.

What a fantastic police state we would all live in then.

seamus

The core of his argument is sound.

Detection and enforcement is the main problem. No amount of driver education will improve attitudes to a huge degree. The problem is that there are a few people who drive like idiots. They have an impact on the rest of us. After being cut up or blocked once too often by such an idiot, and thinking, "why the hell does it seem like the Gardai don't care about this?", others then fall into the trap and drive similarly poorly.

People are selfish animals. We will take risks to further ourselves. For many, many people, factor number two (after "Will this kill me?") in determining risk is "What are my chances of being caught, and what will happen if I'm caught?". The consequences of being caught are clear and pretty good. The chances of being caught are dismally low.

I'd be in favour of hidden cameras. There's no point in putting speed cameras up and telling people that they're there. They just slow down approaching it.

Hide the cameras, let the speeders rack up the points, and everyone else will slow down generally, given the risk of being caught by an unknown camera.

cyclopath2001

>>Lets fit them to cyclists and pedestrians whilst we're at it - why should car drivers be singled out.<<

Because it is car drivers that are killing, maiming & terrorising people.

It's time to stop the denial & deal with the problem.

C.

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

>>Lets fit them to cyclists and pedestrians whilst we're at it - why should car drivers be singled out.<<

Because it is car drivers that are killing, maiming & terrorising people.

It's time to stop the denial & deal with the problem.

C.

"Terrorising"?
If you're interested in melodrama, join a local theatre group, don't post it on boards.

mackerski

cyclopath2001 wrote:

>>Lets fit them to cyclists and pedestrians whilst we're at it - why should car drivers be singled out.<<

Because it is car drivers that are killing, maiming & terrorising people.

It's time to stop the denial & deal with the problem.

Well, I drive a car, and I've never killed maimed or terrorised anybody. So far I think I've got a pretty good case for being assumed to be as socially upstanding as any other citizen. Dammit, I even stop at red lights, such is my public spirit, if only other road users...

The title of this thread, which I think was also the headline of the article, gives away the foolishness of the argument within - the stated goal is to kill speed, not to contribute to road-safety. For years, the entire public road-safety has been focussed on the dangers of speed. Enforcement has been focussed on speed limits. Accidents still occur at unacceptable rates.

Speed cameras only log illegal speeds, not unsafe ones. They can't detect bad driving. On 90% of Irish roads, you can hurtle at a perfectly legal but often very ill-advised 60mph (for the time being anyway), and an army of Gatso vans isn't going to prevent you from doing it.

Every time this argument comes around (and tune in next week, when it'll be around again), a bunch of people puff up their chests and announce that, of course exceeding the speed limit contributes to accidents, because of the stats that show speed as a contributor to accidents. Sure - but is that "excessive" speed" or "illegal" speed? Because if the former and not the latter, then it's about time the authorities started making up for 30+ years of lost time and started examining just how badly (in all of its manifestations) people drive instead of going for the easy (and ineffective) option.

Dermot

Zaph0d

mackerski, (sorry for all the questions) do you believe the problem is mostly due to poor driver education rather than ineffective enforcement?
Do you see any role for improved legal speed limit enforcement and how would you do it if not by camera/tracker?
Do you think there should be any legal speed limits?
Do you think that effective legal speed limit enforcement would not reduce road fatalities significantly?

cyclopath2001

>>Well, I drive a car, and I've never killed maimed or terrorised anybody. So far I think I've got a pretty good case for being assumed to be as socially upstanding as any other citizen. Dammit, I even stop at red lights, such is my public spirit, if only other road users...<<

How do you know you have not terrorised anyone? Most motorists assume that when pedestrians wait for minutes in the rain to cross the road it is out of respect for the driver. It is out of fear of being run over.

Even when driving below the speed limit,any speed over 30mph is likely to be fatal to a anyone not protected by air-bags and armour. Driving at lower speeds in general would be considerate to others and, in the event of accident, not your fault (of course), would mean the consequences would be less for the pedestrian or cyclist.

What is proposed is a system that would fairly detect those who should be put off the road or have higher insurance loadings. Safe drivers like yourself would benefit.

Tommy Vercetti

cyclopath2001 wrote:

What is proposed is a system that would fairly detect those who should be put off the road or have higher insurance loadings. Safe drivers like yourself would benefit.

No, what is proposed is a system that would potentially put someone "off the road" for driving 1mph over the speed limit, whilst any drunken fool on the wrong side of the road will no be detected. If you had less of the drama and actually paid some attention to what is being said, it might get through to you.

Gurgle

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Because it is car drivers that are killing, maiming & terrorising people.
C.

Something like 50% of fatal accidents in this country occur in the 'early hours of the morning', when the driver at fault is either drunk or tired, or both. They also don't usually happen on the main roads and motorways, more often on the shìtty little donkey tracks which is all we have once we're off the main roads. These places will never be covered by cameras.

Around half of the other 50% of fatal accidents 'involve' trucks. Not neccessarily because the truck drivers are so incompetant but due to the phenomenal number of trucks occupying our crappy little national road network. The odds on hitting a truck are higher and in a truck v car collision you're gonna end up a smear.

Why so many trucks ? Because we've no bloody railways.

Then of course there are a few deaths caused by the lunatics driving at 120mph on the motorway. These generally seem to be the only ones that anyone tries to stop.

Why ?
The solutions to #1 and #2 would cost money.
The solution to #3 makes money.

Hagar

Zaph0d wrote:

Article by Feargal Quinn in the Irish Times, advocating speed cameras everywhere.

As a businessman, I am attracted by the fact that the return on this investment would be both sizeable and fast.

It think that says it all. Money Money Money.

sliabh

First the offical stats:
http://www.nra.ie/PublicationsResources/DownloadableDocumentation/RoadSafety/d993.PDF

Gurgle wrote:

Something like 50% of fatal accidents in this country occur in the 'early hours of the morning', when the driver at fault is either drunk or tired, or both.

The exact figure is 43% from 9pm to 6am.

But the NRA stats show that 42% of accidents are on the National routes and another 28% on urban roads, which is where the cameras are to be located.

So I think this "people are being killed on the ****ty back roads" thing which keeps getting mentioned here can be laid to rest as nonsense. They are dying on the N roads where you find Garda check points and Gatsos.

The Gardaí are not muppets, and they are expected to deliver results. So they carry out the checks where they are most effective, i.e. where the accidents are occurring.

Gurgle wrote:

Around half of the other 50% of fatal accidents 'involve' trucks.

There is nothing in the data given to suggest this.

The report is pretty clear that alcohol and speed are what are the major causes in crashes.

I fail to see as well why people keep spouting the nonsense that penalty points (or speed cameras) are about making money for the government. If we were talking about €100m's I might agree. But the sums involved are in the tens of millions. And there are huge costs related to collecting this money. Do you know how much it will cost to have 2 Guards and a patrol car sitting at the side of the road for an hour? Then there is the cost of fine and penalty processing and court time for appeals as well. The only way the government makes money from these things is in reduced health care from not having people in Rehab and from remaining a productive member of the workforce instead of an invalid after a major accident.

And this is what Senator Quinn is referring to when he talks about return on investment. Money spent on prevention now will be returned massively in reduced health spending and improved quality of life for people that are not going to get killed or injured on the roads.

Zaph0d

I didn't realise that the new National Road Safety Strategy 2004-2006 had been published last friday and in fact advocates most of the items in Quinn's article. (He must have seen it).
http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/5905-0.pdf.
Presumably this means that speed camera operation will now be outsourced in the same way that clamping was outsourecd to Control Plus. If this move is followed by a drop in road fatalities, I'd guess the debate will then end.

cyclopath2001

>>No, what is proposed is a system that would potentially put someone "off the road" for driving 1mph over the speed limit<<

I did not propose the above. I believe that what is needed is to examine a driver's overall style, including inappropriate speed. If the only fault is having driven 1mph over the limit under otherwise safe conditions, I'd let it pass.

It is about time the problem of hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries and a state of fear on the streets be dealt with the same urgency as if the country were being attacked by terrorists.

C.

Gurgle

Zaph0d wrote:

I didn't realise that the new National Road Safety Strategy 2004-2006 had been published last friday and in fact advocates most of the items in Quinn's article. (He must have seen it).
http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/5905-0.pdf.
Presumably this means that speed camera operation will now be outsourced in the same way that clamping was outsourecd to Control Plus. If this move is followed by a drop in road fatalities, I'd guess the debate will then end.

Thats not a report, its a brochure.

sliabh wrote:

Originally Posted by Gurgle
Around half of the other 50% of fatal accidents 'involve' trucks.

There is nothing in the data given to suggest this.

page 32

Goods vehicles involved in 73 fatal accidents.

sliabh

Gurgle wrote:

page 32

Goods vehicles involved in 73 fatal accidents.

And there were 276 fatal accidents involving cars. So we are still no where near the 50% total that you claimed.

Gurgle

sliabh wrote:

And there were 276 fatal accidents involving cars. So we are still no where near the 50% total that you claimed.

I apologises for unclarity.
I is approximating wildly.
I said half of the other half, i.e. half of the ones which don't happen between 9pm and 6pm so about 1/4 of fatal accidents involve trucks. (4 X 73 = 292)

I think speed cameras are good, if used right, as part of an overall strategy.
My argument is that we need a national transport infrastructure.

sliabh wrote:

But the NRA stats show that 42% of accidents are on the National routes and another 28% on urban roads, which is where the cameras are to be located.QUOTE]

So the other 30% are on the shìtty little backroads. I reckon* these are often the accidents caused by speeding. I also reckon that 30% is disproportionate to the amount of driving time / distance travelled on backroads.

*reckon -> i have no evidence

seamus

Gurgle wrote:

I apologises for unclarity.
I is approximating wildly.
I said half of the other half, i.e. half of the ones which don't happen between 9pm and 6pm so about 1/4 of fatal accidents involve trucks. (4 X 73 = 292)

One-fifth </pedantic>. Still disproportionatly high though.

Don't forget that 42% of accidents occur on N roads, when the majority of N roads in this country are little more than ****ty little backroads. The N81 to Blessington would still be a crap road if it wasn't for the Tour de France. Drive past Hollywood down to Baltinglass, and it gets worse - windier and smaller. And this is a national road.

Gurgle

seamus wrote:

One-fifth </pedantic>. Still disproportionatly high though.

Don't forget that 42% of accidents occur on N roads, when the majority of N roads in this country are little more than ****ty little backroads. The N81 to Blessington would still be a crap road if it wasn't for the Tour de France. Drive past Hollywood down to Baltinglass, and it gets worse - windier and smaller. And this is a national road.

And that road had an 'N' before being upgraded.

When you see 'National secondary route' on a map of Ireland, think in terms of donkey tracks with a speed limit of 60mph. Ya don't even have to break the law to drive at a dangerous speed.

mackerski

Zaph0d wrote:

mackerski, (sorry for all the questions) do you believe the problem is mostly due to poor driver education rather than ineffective enforcement?

A combination of both - but my beef with the enforcement is partly with it being misplaced (wrong roads) and mostly with it being too narrow (always speed [limit], never tailgating, or failure to consider road conditions, signalling, observations, softer stuff). They have reduced a driver's duty to a single, coarsely defined offence, and most of the drivers don't seem to have known about the other stuff in the first place.

Zaph0d wrote:

Do you see any role for improved legal speed limit enforcement and how would you do it if not by camera/tracker?

Not with a view to reducing fatalities. Not, that is, unless there is a clear indication that a particular speed (limit) enforcement drive targets an area prone to accidents whose main cause is exceeding the limit. But most of the accidents we see reported seem to have rather more to do with other factors:

* Darkness
* Adverse weather or consequent poor road conditions
* Ill-advised manoevers (sometimes at illegal speeds, but an oncoming car will make sh1te of you even if you are legal)
* Insufficient margin of error (tailgating, speed in excess of visibility)

Given the extensive focus of safety campaigns on speed (limits), isn't it amazing that you don't hear more accident causes reported as "he was exceeding the speed limit when his car spun out of control"?

Zaph0d wrote:

Do you think there should be any legal speed limits?

Yes - but with significant change of emphasis, designed to reflect actual danger levels and to foster driver respect. Much of my thinking on this matter reflects my experiences of the German rules:

Urban limits should be sane and policed. In residential areas, they could be reduced quite dramatically.

* In many countries, they have "play streets" with really low limits. Germany defines a thing that translates as "walking pace" (taken as abou 7km/h) that is applicable to these streets. Think residential squares and cul de sacs. The thinking here is utter priority for non-motorised users, since these are end destinations and the only reason for being there is if you are arriving or departing.

* 30km/h zones - could readily be applied to most non-arterial residential streets. This is envisaged in our reform. Stupidly (IMHO), it'll only happen here with ramps 'n' suchlike, which is costly, unpleasant and unnecessary. Want a gatso cash-cow? Wire the 30-zones for pictures. It works elsewhere.

* [what is about to become] 50km/h zones - these could mostly stay as they are, though some seem misapplied at the moment. A through-route with no houses shouldn't need to be this slow, it only breeds disdain for the properly applied zones.

* Current 40mph zones. These seem set to be slowed down to 60km/h. Bad idea. Such is the fashion for 30-zones that should have been 40, most of actual 40 zones I know should more properly be marked up to 70 or in some cases even 80km/h.

* Dual carriageways: Should either have a higher default limit or have a pragmatic mark-up policy on those that are either non-urban or grade-separated. 120km/h works well elsewhere, and most of our motorway-resembling high-quality ones would be fully de-restricted in Germany.

* Motorways: Our current default limit was borrowed from the UK, where it was first applied in the days of cross-ply tyres and drum brakes. Today, a 140km/h or higher limit is not unreasonable. For safe traffic on a motorway, you need a mix of speeds (2-3 lanes at +/- 10km/h of each other makes overtaking more dangerous) and a good reason for drivers to clear the overtaking lane. The M50 is currently a poxy mess of tailgaters and left-overtakers largely due to the fact that it has two lanes, one at about 55mph (old-timers pining for the energy-crisis speed limit) and the other one edging by it at about 57. Artificially low limits cause dangerous bunching of traffic. You'd probably have to approach my advocated increase gradually, though.

Zaph0d wrote:

Do you think that effective legal speed limit enforcement would not reduce road fatalities significantly?

I don't believe that it would - for the reasons given above. Or rather, I think that the kind of policing that will catch the currently-ignored offences will deliver better results, making it a better use of manpower. It would also pull in its share of speeders. The advantage of doing it as a package is that prosecutions will often be for more serious offences attracting more points (or a range of simultaneous offences, also meaning more points). It's more of a deterrent. It also makes drivers think about how to avoid prosecution, where today it's a very simple (and simplistic) approach.

Dermot