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

seamus

11%? That's HUGE. If you said that environmental or vehicle factors weren't worth going after, that would be fine, but 11%? That is definitely a figure worth working on, as well as the 82%. I was arguing with the thought that it might 5-6% pedestrian error, but 11% is a big figure. Not insignificant in the slightest. Considering that all people are pedestrians, it's something we do on a constant basis, that figure should be nil or negligible. We should be experienced enough to make a good judgement call.

Again, if you're going to insist that motorists' attitudes are worked on, you'll have to include pedestrians in that, or that 11% figure will just grow and grow (as the 82% drops and drops).

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?

How about enforcing compliance with the Rules of the Road, period? The law is for all, not for some.

How people react as pedestrians can usually be an indicator of how they'll act on the roads. Risk-taker pedestrians will take risks on the road. Compliant pedestrians will generally comply on the roads. It's not farfetched to think that instilling respect for the roads in our children, and adults, as regards walking, and particularly cycling, will help build a foundation of proper respect for the roads. The courtesy and common sense of motorists has gone to pot in this country, but then so has the courtesy and common sense of pedestrians. Drive into the city centre on a Friday or Saturday night, and it won't be more than 30 seconds before some idiot steps out in front of you, or continues to cross when the pedesrian light is red. 5 seconds later, a taxi driver will cut you off, then park right in front of you to pick up a passenger.

It's no coincidence.

cyclopath2001

>>How about enforcing compliance with the Rules of the Road, period? The law is for all, not for some.<<

Of course we should & it would be sensible that the effort should be biased towards the major hazards.

Now, what would be a most effective way to help the Gardai prevent death and injury through the mis-use of motor vehicles?

Do you favour speed cameras or satellite tracking?

seamus

it would be sensible that the effort should be biased towards the major hazards.

That would be wrong. The law is not biased, nor should it be.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Now, what would be a most effective way to help the Gardai prevent death and injury through the mis-use of motor vehicles?

Education and enforcement. We need more Gardai and a dedicated traffic corp.

Do you favour speed cameras or satellite tracking?

Speed cameras, yes, if they're unmarked, and people know they're unmarked. Satellite tracking is fine if it's voluntary, I've no problem with people signing up by choice and availing of cheaper insurance. As a tool to be used by the Government though, no.

Although a black box system as suggested by Victor mightn't be too bad. It could contain the vehicles history, to protect the buyer, and could help in crash investigations, by giving a clearer view of what happened just before the crash. Twould require a drastic change in older and cheaper cars though.

pickarooney

1. Speed limiters in all vehicles

2. Cycle paths (ones that don't magically turn into bus lanes/taxi ranks) all over the country

3. A roof over Dublin

sliabh

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Do you favour speed cameras or satellite tracking?

I think that people that advocate technical solutions to these problems underestimate the cost and complexity involved. Satellite tracking can't even be used successfully for road tolling let alone enforcement of traffic laws:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3500269.stm

People often invest too much belief in these sort of systems. They are not a magic bullet. And this is speaking from experience, I am a Mechanical and a Computer Engineer.

And cyclopath2001, can you PLEASE use the same quote system as the rest of us?

Victor

seamus wrote:

The law is not biased, nor should it be.

The law is most certainly weighted.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote:

That would be wrong. The law is not biased, nor should it be.

I said bias the EFFORT, not the law.