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

mackerski

cyclopath2001 wrote:

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.

Reflect for a moment on how society functions (or should function). Each of us has a role in making somebody else's day nicer. At its most basic level, this manifests itself in social norms - don't kill somebody because you covet his stuff, don't eat with your mouth open, and so on. Our rules also cover the safe and equitable division of space and other resources among the people conflicting to use them, based on their requirements.

Back to how I manage to drive without terrorising other members of the public - Your pedestrian who wants to cross the road wants to use the same road I'm on. Depending where this is, he sometimes may not (a Motorway) or he may and I shouldn't be driving there (pedestrian zone), or we have something in between, and conventions exist deciding who gets to go when (traffic lights, pedestrian crossing). At a minimum, I owe the pedestrian his stab at the green light and his right of way a the pedestrian crossing. _If_ it's chucking down rain and _if_ I'm not at risk of being rear-ended by the bloke behind, I'd consider it a friendly gesture to yield to the pedestrian anyway (I hold the door open for the next person too...). I'm happy to do all of this, since the pedestrian is my fellow human being with as much right to be there as I have. And because I too am often a pedestrian.

Naturally, the pedestrian will reciprocate. When I'm in a thick line of traffic, he won't balls me up by crossing on red and making me miss my sequence. After all, he knows if I did that in my car I'd be looking at a big fine and points any day now. He wouldn't abuse that inequality for the sake of 20 seconds of having to admire the view. He realises that, for all he knows, I'm not one of those selfish drivers that eschews his public transport options so he can pick his nose in peace and quiet. He would be supportive of the fact that I haven't eaten any babies at all since this time last year, except on special occasions.

Society being polite, the cyclists too appreciate this give-and-take. They are so appreciative of the fact that I watch out for them and grant them their right of way that they avoid terrorising _me_ by observing their legal obligations and making themselves visible in the hours of darkness. They understand the stress of seeing that elusive shadow at the last minute and the car-cleaning costs that can ensue (inside and out).

Peace and love, and, as Judge used to say, "mind yourselves!",
Dermot

Zaph0d

mackerski wrote:

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.

Very good answers. Very reasonable.

One section of older Irish drivers have never done a driving test because they got their licenses in the same way you get a TV licence, by filling in a form. Unless they happened to read a copy of the rules of the road, they are driving by making it up as they go along. Another section of drivers got their licenses in the 1979 amnesty when all 2nd provisional license holders were given full licences. Finally, hundreds of thousands of drivers just use provisional licences.

So a huge proportion of the drivers could not obey the road rules even if they wanted to as they simply don't know them. I would advocate forcing them all to undergo a certain number of hours instruction from a certified instructor and then sitting a test but we know this is not feasible as the driver testing agency has had waiting lists of up to a year for most of the last 30 years. This is despite the fact that they operate as a monopoly.

With this mass of ignorance and a fairly low standard to pass even for those who do take a test, getting people to at least obey the legal speed limits and to drive sober may be about the only rules they can understand.

The items you list as contributing more to accidents than speed:
darkness, adverse weather/road, dangerous manoeuvres & tailgating are all made more dangerous in proportion to the speed of the driver. An untrained driver may not be aware that any of the above items are dangerous situations and may not limit his speed accordingly, he may continue breaking the legal speed limit as the majority of cars are doing at any given time on Irish roads.

This is the strange thing about the new road safety strategy: there is almost nothing amongst the proposals and targets related to education, it's all enforcement. All they suggest is to "discourage long term reliance on provisional licences" and the establishment of driving instructor testing.

Making stricter tests and introducing compulsory training would have cost nothing to the government - all the costs would be transferred to the learner driver. The testing agency could have been allowed to raise their fee and hire more testers with the money. Provisional licence holders could be charged an increasing fee for each subsequent licence they applied for. I don't know why these measures weren't taken when they would have cost the state nothing.

cyclopath2001

>>Our rules also cover the safe and equitable division of space and other resources among the people conflicting to use them, based on their requirements.<<

Except that it is motorists who decided what is equitable & whose requirements are more important.

I suspect that some motorists, when they bother to stop at traffic lights without blocking the pedestrian crossing, are expecting grateful pedestrians to tug their forelocks & thank them warmly for being allowed to exercise the fundamental right of freedom of movement!

But seriously, rules that could improve the quality of life for pedestrians & others are not enforced. This thread is about effective methods of controlling motorist behaviour.

C.

mackerski

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Except that it is motorists who decided what is equitable & whose requirements are more important.

Not formally - most of our lawmakers are at least motorists and pedestrians, and many will be (or will have been) cyclists too. On this day of Paisley's "ground-breaking" visit to Dublin, you might just as easily observe that it is Roman Catholics who fix our laws and extrapolate from there.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

But seriously, rules that could improve the quality of life for pedestrians & others are not enforced. This thread is about effective methods of controlling motorist behaviour.

If you say so - I gave it the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was concerned with safety for all.

Dermot

Gurgle

Zaph0d wrote:

This is the strange thing about the new road safety strategy: there is almost nothing amongst the proposals and targets related to education, it's all enforcement. All they suggest is to "discourage long term reliance on provisional licences" and the establishment of driving instructor testing.

Its all about being seen to be doing something about road deaths. If it 'fails', they can blame the drivers, the gardai etc.
If it costs nothing (except for consultancy fees) thats great.
If it can actually make money, thats somebody's christmas bonus assured.

How can they address the issue of non-enforcement of dangerous driving laws ?
e.g. tailgating, what is the legal distance you have to stay behind another car at 55mph ?
There isn't one.
Should there be ?
Is a garda qualified to decide whats dangerous driving and what isnt, if you're not breaking any specific laws ?

cyclopath2001

>>you might just as easily observe that it is Roman Catholics who fix our laws and extrapolate from there<<

Indeed, there is much evidence of 'motorist mindset' in the laws, rules and road designs.

Bee

cyclopath2001 wrote:

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

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

C.

Stop trolling you silly person!

Your anti car stance is laughable, can you not see the cycling thugs ruining the streets for pedestrians let alone all road vehichles including the Luas.

Only an idiot would think technology is the answer to road offences. The gardai currently can't be ar$ed to do anything about the killer cycling thugs breaking all of the rules of the road on a constant basis.

Ask the nice folk in DCC as they watch the traffic camers and the donut eating gob$hites in Harcourt street with the same cameras watching cyclists ignore red lights at all traffic junctions.

I have seen the results of too many cycling non-accidents to know who is 99% at fault i.e. eejit cyclists.

Bee

cyclopath2001

>>Stop trolling you silly person!

Your anti car stance is laughable,<<

You're still in denial.

I'm not anti-car, I'm anti killing, maiming & bullying. Most such incidents involve cars & trucks, such as the one one I saw deliberately make a prohibited right turn through an active pedestrian signal at Clontarf this week (forcing pedestrians to jump clear) or the many cars I see each day driving at lethal (i.e.fatal) speeds in the city.

We need to find ways of changing this behaviour. My point is that satellite tracking would be fairer and more effective than speed cameras.

Trusting motorists without some form of effective monitoring and supervision has not worked. The party is over.

Gurgle

cyclopath2001 wrote:

My point is that satellite tracking would be fairer and more effective than speed cameras.

And its a good point.
If made compulsory however, I would consider it an invasion of my personal liberty. I have no history of traffic offences, I'm not a criminal, why should the gardai have the right to track my every movement ?

In a perfect world maybe, if it would be used only to track my speed. This isn't a perfect world. I don't want a gardai central computer to have records of when and where I drive.

Zaph0d

Gurgle wrote:

I'm not a criminal, why should the gardai have the right to track my every movement ?

If you carry a mobile phone, they already can track your movements.

cyclopath2001

>>If made compulsory however, I would consider it an invasion of my personal liberty. <<

Unfortunately many are abusing this liberty and putting innocent lives at risk. As always, there is a price to be paid to ensure public safety. We already have to accept this when we fly.

Driving or cycling on the road is a privilege, not a right.

If you wish to have liberty with with some anonymity you can walk, cycle or use public transport.

C.

Victor

Originally Posted by Gurgle
I'm not a criminal, why should the gardai have the right to track my every movement ?

Are you saying, hand on heart that you've never broken the law?

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

If you wish to have liberty with with some anonymity you can walk, cycle or use public transport.

If you would fit cars with tracking devices to make sure they complied with the law, then why not pedestrians and cyclists? Hell, why not just implant us all with tags when we're born?

Pedestrians and cyclists are umpteen times more ignorant and abusive of the rules of the road than ICE* vehicles are. Granted, that they're more dangerous to others, but you can't lay out a set of rules and only ask that certain groups follow them. That's hypocrasy.


*Internal Combustion Engine

cyclopath2001

>>If you would fit cars with tracking devices to make sure they complied with the law, then why not pedestrians and cyclists? <<

Just how would tracking pedestrians and cyclists bring about a reduction in vehicle mis-use?

It would be more efficient to attach the devices to cars and trucks as most deaths and injuries on the road involve vehicle abuse.

C.

secret_squirrel

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Just how would tracking pedestrians and cyclists bring about a reduction in vehicle mis-use?

It would be more efficient to attach the devices to cars and trucks as most deaths and injuries on the road involve vehicle abuse.

C.

A bike was a vehicle last time I checked, and I probably see more proportionally more cyclists, than motorists abusing their privledges in any trip around town.
You seem to be completely in denial here, as a semi regular cyclist I often find myself stopping at a red light only for hordes of my fellow cyclists blithely wobble on past.

Anyhow with the economies of scale with what you are supporting we could easily tag a few hundred thousand bikes as well.

Demonising all motorists for an offending few is about as valid as demonising all men as rapists.

cyclopath2001

>>A bike was a vehicle last time I checked, and I probably see more proportionally more cyclists, than motorists abusing their privledges in any trip around town.<<

This thread is about effective ways of saving people from death or injury. These are mostly caused by motorists, not unruly cyclists. Existing methods of ensuring that cars and trucks are used safely have failed.

Speed cameras are too unreliable and random. Let's find more effective methods.

>>Demonising all motorists for an offending few is about as valid as demonising all men as rapists.<<

I agree, lets' only demonise those who break the speed limits, drive through red lights, overtake on white lines, park illegally, fail to indicate & generally abuse the right to safety of others.

How about making satellite tracking voluntary with large discounts on tax & insurance for those who volunteer & demonstrate that they are disciplined drivers? The improvement in behaviour will serve a a role-model for others.

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Just how would tracking pedestrians and cyclists bring about a reduction in vehicle mis-use?

Pedestrians will know that if they step off the kerb where there's no crossing, or where the lights are red, they'll get arrested for it. This in turn will force a change in attitude where motorists are no longer at risk from the blind idiot who steps out in the middle of moving traffic, or attempts to run across a red light crossing in front of a 40-footer.

Likewise cyclists can be arrested for breaking red lights, both at junctions and pedestrian crossings, thereby saving them (and pedestrians) from being killed or badly injured through their negligence.

All tongue in cheek obviously, but I hope you get my point. Regardless of the attitude of motorists, blatant disregard on the part of peds and cyclists will continue to result in deaths from being struck by a much larger vehicle. A motorist can be doing everything correctly, and still kill another person.

Why you would single out one group of road users is beyond me.

cyclopath2001

>>All tongue in cheek obviously, but I hope you get my point. <<

No I do not, as it is the product of the kind of mindset that perpetuates the current atrocious situation. Have you heard of 'victim blaming'? It's like where a rapist claims that the woman was 'asking for it' or 'should not have been out alone'.

>>Why you would single out one group of road users is beyond me.<<

Because that one group is responsible for most deaths and injury.

sliabh

cyclopath2001 wrote:

No I do not, as it is the product of the kind of mindset that perpetuates the current atrocious situation. Have you heard of 'victim blaming'? It's like where a rapist claims that the woman was 'asking for it' or 'should not have been out alone'.

Because that one group is responsible for most deaths and injury.

You don't seem to accept thought that pedestrians and cyclists can also be responsible for their actions.

Last night I was turning right in Dublin with a green filter light and a cyclist broke the red light and shot across my path. If I had been faster across the junction one of us would have hit the other (she would have hit the side of my car or I would have run into her). Now in either case I would have been fine in my car and the cyclist would have been injured. But there is no way that you can claim it was the motorist that was at fault just because the cyclist was the one injured.

And while I fully agree that motorists generally need to pay more attention to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, the pedestrians and cyclists also need to stop doing dumb ass things like this as well.

To take one limited case, I'd easily say that the majority of cyclists ignore red lights when it suits them. They same is not true of motorists.

Gurgle

Victor wrote:

Are you saying, hand on heart that you've never broken the law?

Innocent until proven guilty

So, yes

cyclopath2001 wrote:

If you wish to have liberty with with some anonymity you can walk, cycle or use public transport.

Nope, I live in Ireland.
None of those 3 is an option.

seamus

Arse. I answered this last night, but boards b0rked.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

No I do not, as it is the product of the kind of mindset that perpetuates the current atrocious situation. Have you heard of 'victim blaming'? It's like where a rapist claims that the woman was 'asking for it' or 'should not have been out alone'.

As I've said already, changing the attitudes of motorists, yes, would reduce road deaths significantly. I don't deny that, and your logic is sound. But we've had this discussion before. I'm not "victim blaming". You can't deny that even if someone is the victim (i.e. the party that comes off worse in an accident) that doesn't immediately absolve them from blame. If you change the attitudes of motorists, pedestrians will still die from making stupid mistakes, albeit in smaller numbers because motorists would be reacting better to it. But some will still die. A motorist can do everything right and still kill a pedestrian.

Because that one group is responsible for most deaths and injury.

Agreed. But what's the point in reducing deaths in one area? Why not try to reduce deaths in all areas? What's the point in having motorists driving like saints, when pedestrians and cyclists are still ignoring the rules of the road, putting their lives and other lives at risk, not to mention terrorising the poor motorists who have to constantly brake cos some idiot stepped out in front of them, or the articulated lorry driver who's traumatised by the feeling of someone's bones crushing under his wheels?

Before you go to the whole "victim blaming" thing again, you need to get the preconception out of your head that pedestrians are always right, and everyone else is just getting in their way. The law already favours pedestrians very heavily. It's more than they receive in other countries. Ever been to India?
"Freedom of movement" does not apply to your right to walk down a street. It applies to your right to move from county to county, from city to city. It's not a specific right, it's a general one, to protect citizens from being forced to live in ghettoed certain areas. To try and claim your rights are being impinged by not being able to walk down a certain street makes a mockery of the reason that human right was declared.

secret_squirrel

Lets take the tagging argument to its logical conclusion shall we?

If we tag everyone we can do the following :

Monitor those people that use the smoking areas in pubs - tens of thousands of people die from smoking related diseases every year.

Ditto those spend too much time in MaccyD's - Obesity is the fastest growing health risk in the western world.

Both of those examples kill far more people than motor vehicles do.

There's only one drawback with both your and my ideas - nobody would want to live in a country where they are in place.

cyclopath2001

>>Agreed. But what's the point in reducing deaths in one area?

>>Lets take the tagging argument to its logical conclusion shall we?

Let's first be logical. The logical thing is to applying resources to where they will be most effective & using the minumum force & effort to achieve the maximum outcome. Focusing on the major causes of motor accidents is logical. Law-breaking & poor judgement by motorists is the major cause of accidents.

>>you need to get the preconception out of your head that pedestrians are always right,<<

I do not recall saying that pedestrians were always right.

In most accidents involving motorists & pedestrians, it is the motorist who is to blame. BTW, in Thomas Street today, I witnessed FOUR cars drive through a pedestrian crossing while the signal clearly favoured pedestrians. The pedestrians were about to cross when the cars purposefully & deliberately moved from a stopped position 20 metres away from the crossing and drove straight at them, against facing red lights. The motorists, including one taxi driver forced the pedestrians to return to the pavement.

Do you have better ideas for how to quickly & significantly reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads? (i.e. before many more people are killed and maimed)

That is the question under discussion.

mackerski

cyclopath2001 wrote:

In most accidents involving motorists & pedestrians, it is the motorist who is to blame.

Is this a supportable fact or more bluffing?

cyclopath2001 wrote:

BTW, in Thomas Street today, I witnessed FOUR cars drive through a pedestrian crossing while the signal clearly favoured pedestrians.

When caught, a motorist doing such a thing is subject to large fines, and, one would like to hope, points any day now.

What happens when a cyclist does this? At a rough estimate, what percentage of cyclists do you think routinely break red lights? You do accept that cyclists are a danger to pedestrians too?

Dermot

seamus

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Do you have better ideas for how to quickly & significantly reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads? (i.e. before many more people are killed and maimed)

Yes. Enforcement and education. There is nothing wrong with our current system. It's just undermanned and underenforced. If there were enough Gardai, and the ones who are currently about had more drive to do their job, things would be fine.

Poor judgement is probably the main cause of all accidents, and is something that can't be enforced by law. Education is the only way. Gardai can catch and stop people for poor judgement, making stupid manouvers, but they won't educate them. Said person will get a fine, head off muttering words about the Gardai, and won't learn a thing.

Monitoring would be a drastic move which would only serve to generate hatred and revolt. Many people would simply have theirs removed, or come up with some way around it. Not trusting people to do the right thing is totally the wrong way of going about anything (when they've had that trust for so long). Would you propose the same thing to solve our drink-related violence problems? Fit a monitor on every drinker that tells the Government how drunk a person is getting, so the Gardai can swoop in and keep an eye on those who are too drunk? After all, drinking is a choice, not a right, and causes social problems, terrorising many other people, and resulting in many deaths every year.

Victor

seamus wrote:

Monitoring would be a drastic move which would only serve to generate hatred and revolt.

In 2002, no aircraft passengers died worldwide (some pilots and crew did). The corresponding figure for road traffic accidents was in the order of 500,000 dead (probably 10m-20m injured). Perhaps black boxes should also be banned.

mackerski

We've had a lot of talk about "black boxes" for cars. Most of the (articulated) objections centre around the vague idea of privacy. A valid concern. Possibly not the main real concern of many objectors. After all, a black box would mean certain "justice" for all speed limit infractions (and be useless for most other offences...).

With this in mind, would those in favour of black boxes (especially those that don't believe that driving a car sends you straight to hell) search their souls and comment honestly on whether, in this world of zero-tolerance of limit-breaking, the limits should _really_ be set at the current levels. You see, there's a schools of thought out there that says that our evolved limits, set as they were in the days when detection and prosecution were very low, are actually quite a bit on the low side of what the authorities actually consider safe. (I'm obviously mostly talking about open-road limits here).

Because the simple truth is that, in a world where you got 2 points for every 32-in-a-30-zone offence, nobody would have a licence at all.

Far be it from me to suggest that that's what some of the contributors are hoping for...

Dermot

cyclopath2001

>>Is this a supportable fact or more bluffing?

Supportable, but not relevant to the topic. Let's stay on topic.

>>What happens when a cyclist does this?

We're side-tracking, the cyclist, if caught, would be subject to the same fine as a motorist & while I do not know what would happen here, in France, might get points on his/her drivers licence. In the situation I described, the pedestrians were obviously too frightened by the cars racing towards them to cross. It if were bicycles, they would probably have avoided each other.

>>Because the simple truth is that, in a world where you got 2 points for every 32-in-a-30-zone offence, nobody would have a licence at all. <<

Why not? The limit is 30mph. That's fast enough to kill someone. When I drive, I stay under the limit, it's the law & for good reason. It just takes a little practice and discipline. 30 is not a target, it's a limit to be reached in ideal conditions. Usually conditions are not ideal. In Spain, the urban speed limit is much lower.

>>Far be it from me to suggest that that's what some of the contributors are hoping for...<<

Nobody wants to ban all driving, just dangerous & anti-social drivers.

>>Yes. Enforcement and education.

Good, now how do we provide the Gardai with an efficient & fair means of enforcement?

mackerski

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Supportable, but not relevant to the topic. Let's stay on topic.

No, let's see you support your assertion - it was sufficiently on-topic for you to make it...

cyclopath2001 wrote:

We're side-tracking, the cyclist, if caught, would be subject to the same fine as a motorist

Not side-tracking at all. So far, you'll have us believe that motorists have full responsibility for road-safety and that other users have no part to play. As a motorist who already plays his part (and has to endure muppetry from both cyclists and pedestrians), I won't accept this kind of guff.

BTW, as a veteran cyclist, you will, of course, be aquainted with other advocates of the velocipede. Surely at least one of them has heard of a real case of a cyclist being fined for running red? No? Still feel we are all subject to the same enforcement?

cyclopath2001 wrote:

In the situation I described, the pedestrians were obviously too frightened by the cars racing towards them to cross. It if were bicycles, they would probably have avoided each other.

I think I remember that bit in the rules of the road: "When pedestrians and cyclists encounter each other due to one or other group running a red light, not to worry, just try to, you know, avoid each other". I also remember many cases of cyclists try to intimidate me (with my pedestrian hat on) out of my right of way. In fact, I'll admit to having been terrorised by the experience.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Why not? The limit is 30mph. That's fast enough to kill someone. When I drive, I stay under the limit, it's the law & for good reason. It just takes a little practice and discipline. 30 is not a target, it's a limit to be reached in ideal conditions. Usually conditions are not ideal. In Spain, the urban speed limit is much lower.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

The general Spanish urban limit is 50km/h, which is a shade _above_ 30mph. They also have lower limits to be imposed as required, as we will from January. Congratulations if you have never strayed over the speed limit. I'm not sure why you are so proud of it, since, by your own admission, it is already lethally fast. I'd say, if I put my mind to it, I could kill a person from 10mph, but that doesn't mean I'll restrict my speed to 5 - instead, I look to road conditions and stopping distances. Of course, Motorists are actually forced to have working brakes on their vehicles, instead of just being obliged, which is a different thing.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Good, now how do we provide the Gardai with an efficient & fair means of enforcement?

We could start by being honest about exactly what they should be enforcing.

Dermot

cyclopath2001

>>No, let's see you support your assertion - it was sufficiently on-topic for you to make it...<<

http://www.doh.ie/pdfdocs/cmo02.pdf

"The contributory factors identified by the Gardaí
in fatal and injury accidents change little over the
years. Driver error is by far the commonest
contributory factor, at 82 per cent, followed by
pedestrian error at 11 per cent, road factors at 4
per cent, environmental factors at 2 per cent and
vehicle factors less than 1 per cent"

>>Not side-tracking at all. So far, you'll have us believe that motorists have full responsibility for road-safety and that other users have no part to play.<<

When did I say that "other users have no part to play"? You are distorting & mis-representing my views.

>>Surely at least one of them has heard of a real case of a cyclist being fined for running red?<<

Yes, indeed, he made a run for it (near Trinity College) when challenged, was caught & appeared in court. He got done for having no lights too. I've heard of and witnessed other instances of the Gardai stopping cyclists and motorists who break the law. Your point is?

>>I think I remember that bit in the rules of the road:<<

It was cars and not bicycles that drove at the pedestrians. No cyclist broke the law. Four drivers did so with impunity. I am sure that the motorists felt no fear when they drove at the pedestrians & forced them off the road. The cyclists that were present were all stopped legally behind their stop lines. Some could not even reach the junction as they were stuck behind cars & vans blocking the cycle lane.

>>We could start by being honest about exactly what they should be enforcing.<<

How about enforcing compliance with the law by people who ignore 'The Rules of the Road' while in charge of vehicles that are of a type statistically known to cause the greatest amount of death & injury when involved in a collision?

Now, how long before 'training and enforcement' will have a significant effect on deaths & injuries? Or is this a cover for maintaining the staus-quo?