'Scrap Cash-Cow Speed Cameras'

I.S.T.

Sky News Link

Swindon Borough Council is reviewing its involvement with the local safety camera partnership scheme and considering whether to spend its £400,000-a-year contribution elsewhere.

It follows a change in camera funding rules which means the Treasury now keeps the proceeds of fines from speed cameras.

The Tory-run council is now considering withdrawing from the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership, says Councillor Roderick Bluh.

Mr Bluh said: "We are not going to compromise safety, but we are taking the opportunity to review how we utilise the money. We have not made a decision yet."

He said a full paper is due to be presented to Cabinet, which will consider the options for road safety spending. A decision will be made by September.

The Government makes road-safety grants to councils from the proceeds of fines but ministers say this breaks the controversial link between cash and camera, giving authorities a financial incentive to fine more motorists.

Tory councillor Peter Greenhalgh, head of highways, transport and strategic planning for Swindon, reportedly said the money should be spent on a range of local safety measures.

"These are far more effective than speed cameras which, I feel, are a blatant tax on the motorist," he said.

"They are being used as a cash cow. I do take exception to the positioning of some mobile speed cameras. They are designed to raise revenue.

"I think enough is enough. There are much more important things we as a council should do instead of acting as a law enforcement arm of this Government."

But the MP for South Swindon said the removal of the cameras could see road accidents and deaths rise and has launched a Hands off Our Speed Cameras campaign.

A spokesman for the Department of Transport said the funding decision was a local matter for Swindon, but added: "Safety cameras are there to save lives not to make money."

tbh

Link

The leader of a council which is considering scrapping speed cameras was once banned from driving for speeding, it was revealed today.

Swindon Borough Council is looking at proposals to get rid of cameras and find other ways to spend the £400,000 annual contribution it currently makes to the local safety camera partnership.

Roderick Bluh, the leader of the Conservative-controlled council, was banned for three months after he collected 12 penalty points on his licence for speeding.
advertisement

Mr Bluh said the ban, which was imposed before he became Swindon council leader in 2006, had changed his behaviour but said there were other ways to improve people's driving.

"I was banned for three months. It has affected my behaviour," he told Sky News.

"But all cameras do is catch you when you have speeded."

cashmni1

banned or not, he is still right!!

Beta Ray Bill

Speed Cameras do not save lives

They make money... simple as...

Anyone who does regularly speed on a road that has a speed camera will slow down when they get to the camera and then once they are passed speed up again.... explain to me how that saves lives!?

they need to come up with a better solution.

alias no.9

I remember reading somewhere about speed cameras which rather than taking a pic so that a fine can be sent out at a later date, they instead sent a signal to a set of traffic lights further up the road so that they will turn red, detaining the driver at the junction for a long enough time to make it a waste of time speeding because any time saved would immediately be lost at the lights. I think this has much more benefit in terms of changing driver behaviour than after the fact fines which are not necessarily associated to the actual offence by the driver who in many cases will not even remember the incident.

G-Money

Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but how can they make money from speed camera's if instead of fines they are just handing out penalty points?

Or do you automatically get both?

daveharnett

grandmaster wrote: »

Or do you automatically get both?

Yep

Frank the Manc

alias no.9 wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere about speed cameras which rather than taking a pic so that a fine can be sent out at a later date, they instead sent a signal to a set of traffic lights further up the road so that they will turn red, detaining the driver at the junction for a long enough time to make it a waste of time speeding because any time saved would immediately be lost at the lights. I think this has much more benefit in terms of changing driver behaviour than after the fact fines which are not necessarily associated to the actual offence by the driver who in many cases will not even remember the incident.

wont that penalise non-offenders also???

Victor

Sky News wrote: »

"I think enough is enough. There are much more important things we as a council should do instead of acting as a law enforcement arm of this Government."

In the UK, law enforcement is a function of local government.

mcwhirter

Durham in northern england does not have any speed cameras yet has more patrol cars instead. There has been no increase of road deaths due to this.
Speed cameras are there to make money unless they are implemented like in japan( as I saw on top gear) which have warning signs telling you how far away the speed camera is to help you be more aware and slow down(if you are speeding) gradually. Why can the Irish government not think it through like Japan instead of jumping in to make money.
We are basically all treated like criminals which can in the years down the line make people feel bitter about the government as has happened in britain(1984?).
The Japan way is thoughtful without blame.

Guy:Incognito

I was watching that report on Sky news last night. Towards the end they were giving accident figures and in every section (borough?) where cameras were, serious and fatal crashes were down something like 30-60% with one place haveing no fatal crashes since the introduction of the cameras.

But yeah, screw all that, it's all about the revenue collection.

mcwhirter wrote: »

Durham in northern england does not have any speed cameras yet has more patrol cars instead. There has been no increase of road deaths due to this.
Speed cameras are there to make money unless they are implemented like in japan( as I saw on top gear) which have warning signs telling you how far away the speed camera is to help you be more aware and slow down(if you are speeding) gradually. Why can the Irish government not think it through like Japan instead of jumping in to make money.
We are basically all treated like criminals which can in the years down the line make people feel bitter about the government as has happened in britain(1984?).
The Japan way is thoughtful without blame.

The japanese way is pointless and just means people will speed to the last sign before the camera and slow down, then speed up after it. How does that make people slow down?

cyclopath2001

mcwhirter wrote: »

We are basically all treated like criminals

There's an awful lot of law-breaking going on. Honest citizens should be protected and law-breakers should be put off the roads. Cameras are useful tools which allow scarce Garda resources to be deployed more effectively.

Statements that cameras are 'revenue generators' are just propaganda from the law-breaking lobby of 'Ordinary Decent Speeders'. It's like criminals complaining about window locks making their job more difficult.

eringobragh

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

There's an awful lot of law-breaking going on. Honest citizens should be protected and law-breakers should be put off the roads. Cameras are useful tools which allow scarce Garda resources to be deployed more effectively.

Statements that cameras are 'revenue generators' are just propaganda from the law-breaking lobby of 'Ordinary Decent Speeders'. It's like criminals complaining about window locks making their job more difficult.

lol ..& i suppose they'll be placed in lethal spots like all the motorways & dual carriageways.

Speed Cameras in Ireland are'nt going to make money i find irish drivers shockingly slow. If people could concentrate on better driving practices rather than like ostrich looking at their speedometers like hmmm for example hitting the hazards at a sudden braking hazard :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::D

cyclopath2001

eringobragh wrote: »

lol ..& i suppose they'll be placed in lethal spots like all the motorways & dual carriageways.

Yes, freeing up resources to deal with other kinds of law-breaking behaviour on single carriageways.

People who deliberately and frequently break the law, should not be permitted share the roads with law-abiding citizens. That's why we have a points system.

Guy:Incognito

I find it funny how people give out about speed cameras on motorways and dual carriageways. For a start these roads actually have speed limits, shock horror. But do peopel really think speed cameras and gards settign up speed traps on country roads would be safe? There are reasons they and other police forces around the world dont do it.


They could sit all day around a blind bend on some country road clocking up speeding fines but they would need a fleet of ambulances and recovery trucks to clear the carnage.

Why bother have a Gard doing something a camera can do equally well or better when he could be off doing other, more important things.

knuth

stekelly: those country roads you speak about are exact areas THAT THOSE ACCIDENTS OCCUR.

cyclopath2001

I think everyone should agree that the rule of law should prevail.

In a law-abiding climate, social and peer-pressure will hopefully influence the kind of person who breaks laws because they think they know better than everyone else.

Guy:Incognito

lordlame wrote: »

stekelly: those country roads you speak about are exact areas THAT THOSE ACCIDENTS OCCUR.

Yes so sticking a Gard in little country roads around bliond bends will help that?

Why is it that no police forces anywhere do that?

mcwhirter

Stekelly wrote: »

I was watching that report on Sky news last night. Towards the end they were giving accident figures and in every section (borough?) where cameras were, serious and fatal crashes were down something like 30-60% with one place haveing no fatal crashes since the introduction of the cameras.

But yeah, screw all that, it's all about the revenue collection.




The japanese way is pointless and just means people will speed to the last sign before the camera and slow down, then speed up after it. How does that make people slow down?

I wasn't on about cars slowing down. Yes I agree cars do drive too fast here through towns etc but is there not another way to prevent accidents rather than just fining people who of some are innocent especially when camera is hidden. How is that a prevention. It doesn't slow you down if you can not see the camera. You may be on a certain road only once a year and speed down it, get a fine, but you weren't prevented in slowing down in the first place.

Other ways to slow us down could be traffic islands, narrowing of lanes, road bumps, not popular but they do slow you down without getting a fine and also an education of why we should not speed or overtake in towns etc.
The Japanese way at least gives you a choice. Basically they are saying, we have given you plenty of warning so if you do speed past the camera, you are caught fair and square and given a fine, quite large I can imagine. I like it and it would make us think about it a bit more instead of blaming those 'bloody' cameras etc etc

cyclopath2001

mcwhirter wrote: »

but is there not another way to prevent accidents rather than just fining people who of some are innocent

If they're speeding they're not innocent. They've broken the law.

It's just a fine and some points, if it's the first time, it won't event affect their insurance premium. A reminder to be law-abiding, no more. If they don't normally break the law, then they won't lose their license. The idea is to give people some warnings (i.e. fines/points) and then put them off the road if they persist in law-breaking and don't get the message.

We don't need law-breakers on the road.

knuth

stekelly: Yes.

E92

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

We don't need law-breakers on the road.

We don't need somebody who only graces us with his presence whenever speeding is discussed either trolling on this forum either.

mcwhirter

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

If they're speeding they're not innocent. They've broken the law.

It's just a fine and some points, if it's the first time, it won't event affect their insurance premium. A reminder to be law-abiding, no more. If they don't normally break the law, then they won't lose their license. The idea is to give people some warnings (i.e. fines/points) and then put them off the road if they persist in law-breaking and don't get the message.

We don't need law-breakers on the road.

There are a lot of people who are innocent when they have been caught exceeding the limit, sometimes they may not be aware of speed limit.

As I said rather then just dishing out points and a fine willy nilly, why not try a different way, Ireland tends to copy other countries mistakes as they are usually last at doing it.
Lets lead rather then follow for once, what

eringobragh

E92 wrote: »

We don't need somebody who only graces us with his presence whenever speeding is discussed either trolling on this forum either.

Especially one who's proven in previous posts (Hazard Light thread) that his driving is far from advanced.

I'd prefer to drive behind a law breaker who knows whats he's doing rather than an all high and mighty 'amateur' :rolleyes:

cyclopath2001

mcwhirter wrote: »

There are a lot of people who are innocent when they have been caught exceeding the limit, sometimes they may not be aware of speed limit.

Sorry, but that does not make sense. They are ignorant, not innocent.

But certainly, new ideas should be considered. How about a system in the car that reminds the driver of the current speed limit?

Steve

Aw not again.

Why can't we have a simple discussion about cameras without it turning into an 'all drivers are child murdering maniacs' thread? :mad:

/facepalm

Redjeep!

I think that he point is the location.

How many serious accidents have been prevented for instance by the camera next to The Spa Hotel in Lucan ?

None.

Is somebody really guilty of a crime by going through that section at 85 km if the road is clear ? Maybe, but I can't believe it's going to be the main reason behind an accident.

It's not necessary speed that's the root cause - it's just another symptom of poor driving, such as overtaking on blind bends, using your phone whilst driving, switching lanes on a roundabout to overtake etc etc.

If there's to be a serious effort to reduce road deaths then there should be a focus on exactly those areas where the accidents occur, typically the main 'non motorway' routes into major towns late at night and at weekend. A concerted effort with a combination of mobile cameras and gards in plain cars would fix it in a year.

Steve

Redjeep! wrote: »

It's not necessary speed that's the root cause - it's just another symptom of poor driving, such as overtaking on blind bends, using your phone whilst driving, switching lanes on a roundabout to overtake etc etc.

Exactly.

Most accidents happen below the posted limit and are attributable to driving too fast for the conditions (the real definition of speeding in my book).

Speed cameras are not going to address any of this.

As posted by others above - "why not put cameras on a bad bend on a back road?"
Because a lunatic intent on killing himself or others by taking the bend too fast will 9 times out of 10 be under the ridiculously high legal limit for that section of road.

Where are people going to be caught?
On good straight roads, in good conditions when it's perfectly safe to go a few km's over the limit.

Marcus.Aurelius

Look people its been said before, Gardai are not doing speed checks much anymore, traffic corps is mostly checkpoints these days, and they're utterly futile money-spinners. So no, resources are not adequately spread out as it is.

Speeding is not a major player in the vast majority of accidents. Excessive speed (in excess of 30 kph over the posted limit) kills a lot of idiots in the wee hours, but mostly, its ignorance and lack of skills that kill people at speeds below the posted limit, think junctions, narrow roads etc.

All the high horses need a good whack of the intelligence stick instead of regurgitating the misinformed mantra of the unwashed masses that comprise the ignorant in this hopeless heckhole of a country.




Too rich?


EDIT: Cyclopath, stop trolling with the same tired argument, you're upsetting the natives at this stage.

cyclopath2001

SteveC wrote: »

Most accidents happen below the posted limit and are attributable to driving too fast for the conditions (the real definition of speeding in my book).

That's a valid statement but it does not address all of the reasons why we have speed limits.

Society limits speed because:

1: It may be the root cause of an accident.
2: Combined with other elements it may lead to an accident.
3: Even where it is no a causal factor, the amount of damage or injury (or likelihood of death) is usually directly proportional to the speed of the vehicle.
4: Speed can cause congestion in busy areas.
5: Noise.
6: Intimidation factor/degradation of quality of life in residential areas.

Automated speed traps and the points system offer one way to identify and remove from the roads people who persistently and deliberately break the law. We still need active intervention by the Gardai to deal with speeding on roads unsuitable for automated speed traps and for other offences.

From what I can see the message is getting through to many road-users but there's a die-hard element who are still in anger/denial.

Marcus.Aurelius

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's a valid statement but it does not address all of the reasons why we have speed limits.

1: It may be the root cause of an accident.
It rarely is, yet it is mooted more than any other factor because of the neuorological incontinence of the masses, including the politicians.

2: Combined with other elements it may lead to an accident.
Rubbish, at 10-20 kph over the stability of a vehicle is largely unaffected at national road speeds

3: Even where it is no a causal factor, the amount of damage or injury (or likelihood of death) is usually directly proportional to the speed of the vehicle.
5-10 kph faster at 100 kph is neglible, we're not talking side roads or residential areas here.


4: Speed can cause congestion in busy areas.
You obviously don't drive much, look at the hassle caused by crawlers each and every day on the M50

5: Noise.
In a modern car, this is a moot point because of the quality of noise insulation and lower drag coefficients

6: Intimidation factor/degradation of quality of life in residential areas.
As previously indicated, we're not talking about residential areas or built up areas, we are discussing the open road

Sorry Cyclopath, you never listen to anyone's arguments and just regurgitate the same thing every thread.

Speed cameras are a weak solution to a non-existant problem. Boy racers die in their hundreds at 3AM in the morning on deserted roads, exactly where such safety cameras will not be placed.

EDIT: You didn't read my post about garda resources, already we're not catching speeders because of management decisions and we still can't get anything useful done. The politicians want a big jump in detected offences for speeding when the cameras come online, doesn't matter how many die before then, it all makes Biffo look good to the usual morons.

Cyclopath, your posts seem incredibly naiive. Do you seriously believe the government is looking out for our best interests over giving money to party pals?

Marcus.Aurelius

Just an addition to my post, does Cyclopath expect me to sit in me high vis traffic corps jacket on a backroad in Kinsealy so i can watch a boy racer kill himself driving into a ditch at a speed well below the usual posted 80 kph on a back road at 3 AM instead of cruising the motorways watching for drunk drivers?

Steve

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Automated speed traps and the points system offer one way to identify and remove from the roads people who persistently and deliberately break the law. We still need active intervention by the Gardai to deal with speeding on roads unsuitable for automated speed traps and for other offenses.

From what I can see the message is getting through to many road-users but there's a die-hard element who are still in anger/denial.

I respect your argument that everybody must obey the law, I am not in any way condoning that people break it - at the same time, I'll freely admit to breaking said law on occasion when conditions permit it (e.g. during overtaking).

What you fail to grasp is that most accidents on Irish roads are caused by stupidity, inexperience, and elevated testosterone levels. These cannot be policed by cameras. They can and (I hope) will be policed by intelligent humans in the form of garda traffic corps who have been trained to recognize bad driving behavior and deal with it as such. The cameras, sadly, cannot do this.

heyjude

Speed cameras are a seemingly simple solution to a complex problem, that being the high rate of road accident deaths.

They are calculated to appeal politically on several levels, promising 24/365 policing of speeding offences, allowing garda resources to be redeployed to other tasks and bringing in millions every year in extra revenue. To the politician, this has immediate appeal as it seems to tackle a major cause of road accidents, it means that extra gardai are not required and it pays for itself and millions more.

Where it breaks down though is that most accidents happen on rural roads where it isn't cost effective to put speed cameras(they don't catch as many speeders there and so motorways and dual carriageways are their preferred location), they can't be used to tackle drunk and dangerous driving, which are probably the causes of most deaths and the gardai that are excused from speed camera duty do not seem to be redeployed to tackling the real road accident risk behaviour, so leading to the perception, real or imagined that less gardai are on road duty and yet millions from speed cameras flow into the state coffers. So law enforcement becomes the responsibility of the machine not the gardai.

The government say that the speed cameras are to tackle road safety not raise revenue and the gardai say they can't mount speed checks on rural roads as it would be too dangerous. So a logical solution would be to put sensible speed limits on rural roads and then use speed cameras to enforce them, while the gardai enforce the road traffic laws where they can do so, on the motorways, dual carriageways and urban roads. The government should also look at placing cameras at junctions to catch drivers, who run red lights, a very dangerous practice and one for which cameras are ideally suited. But the decision on where to site cameras shouldn't depend on the forecast revenue, but rather on road accident reductions.

astraboy

Cyclopath trolling again. What a surprise. Interesting how he claims to want everyone to obey the law as "its the law" is basically his argument, with no questioning if the law is correct, or correctly applied.

This coming from a person who admits to disobeying the Gov publication of the rules of the road and not pulling over to the hard shoulder to allow faster drivers to overtake safetly. Of course he hates speeders, yet he see's no problem in pootling along well under the limit holding up 100's of cars behind him.

And as for his driving credentials, claiming that someone would put on his hazzards on Corks south link not to warn drivers of quickly slowing traffic, but to "pull over for a packet of fags" sums this guy up. His high horse antics are getting tiresome and take no account of what actually happens out on the road.

Of course, cyclopath is a cyclist and can routinely cycle on footpaths and break red lights with impunity. :rolleyes: I have yet to view another internet warrior with such a closed mind to overwhelming evidence and closed to others POV.

The speeding argument is done to death. The speed scameras are revenue generators and we will see them on the safest roads and dual carriageways with limits set too low. Sneaky Taxation is all this is.

How about more cops cruising the roads pulling those actually driving dangerously, instead of someone doing 125Kph on a motorway.......

E92

Nice sig astraboy:p!

What sickens me is that those lovely new dual carriageways that should be called Motorways but for some idotic reason the Government still hasn't gotten around to re-classifying these roads into Motorways are actually designed for not 120 but 160 km/h. Yet because they're not motorways you can only legally travel at 100 km/h on them(or 62.5% of the speed they are designed for, but given the way car speedos over-read that probabaly means we only ever go at 55% of their designed speed), even though it is perfectly legal for county councils to put 120 km/h limits on roads as they see fit even if they're not a Motorway:mad:!

Anyway the whole thing has been done so many times I'm really rather tired of this debate. I'm made my views perfectly clear on all the other threads that relate to this issue, so I don't see a need to do so again.

Btw, the speed cameras here have been delayed again AFAIK because of the cutbacks, sorry I mean adjustments:D!

astraboy

E92 wrote: »

Nice sig astraboy:p!

What sickens me is that those lovely new dual carriageways that should be called Motorways but for some idotic reason the Government still hasn't gotten around to re-classifying these roads into Motorways are actually designed for not 120 but 160 km/h. Yet because they're not motorways you can only legally travel at 100 km/h on them(or 62.5% of the speed they are designed for, but given the way car speedos over-read that probabaly means we only ever go at 55% of their designed speed), even though it is perfectly legal for county councils to put 120 km/h limits on roads as they see fit even if they're not a Motorway:mad:!

Anyway the whole thing has been done so many times I'm really rather tired of this debate. I'm made my views perfectly clear on all the other threads that relate to this issue, so I don't see a need to do so again.

Btw, the speed cameras here have been delayed again AFAIK because of the cutbacks, sorry I mean adjustments:D!

Prime example, Ballincollig bypass. I was on it during the week and its a motorway standard, yet has a 100kph limit. Of course the cops are regulary up on the bridge catching people doing 110-120, around the motorway limit. But its Cork, and the Gov have little interest in upgrading our infrastructure....

And yes, speed limits on motorways should be raised, and all those hogging the overtaking lane shot at dawn!

Anan1

I wouldn't have a problem with big orange speed cameras outside schools, in residential areas, etc. The idea should be to deter people from speeding rather than to catch them. For what it's worth, I think most people drive too fast in built-up areas and too slowly on open roads where visibility is good.

mcwhirter

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Sorry, but that does not make sense. They are ignorant, not innocent.

But certainly, new ideas should be considered. How about a system in the car that reminds the driver of the current speed limit?

Ignorant?

Remember this is a fine for exceeding a speed limit not shooting someone, often the cameras are in places that are setup to receive income rather then help the pedestriants and locals.
Where I live, cars and lorries speed through a 50km/h zone, yet a police camera checkpoint was setup just outside the town where there are no houses, just after the speed limit changes to 80km/h. He had his camera setup to aim a few metres within the 50km/h zone.
He was raking it in. The gardai knew this was a place where drivers begin to speed up even more after the 50km/h zone.
If they had setup the cameras on the 50km/h zone, in the town, drivers would probably spot it, slow down (therefore helping locals), and gardai would rake in less money. It's very simple. Yet this is the place where the locals want to have the camera as it makes the drivers slow down in the town, not outside it. It doesn't help anyone and just annoys everyone including people fined and the locals who have the speeders in their town.
They have been doing this for years in the UK and it doesn't work.
Why can we in Ireland not do it different? and not copy what the UK always does.

cyclopath2001

astraboy wrote: »

'Cyclopath trolling again'......Personal attacks.... provocation..... lies.... off-thread references....misquotes

Glad to know you're still with us, Astraboy.

As to the other more mature contributions, I think we must remember that people don't lose their licenses for just one lapse, but if they're regularly caught speeding on camera, there's something wrong with their attitude. I'd certainly consider a regime with lower or no fines, but where the points accumulate as they do now. But it's going too far to allow law-breakers to pass themselves off as innocent victims of a cynical tax-collection regime.

Denying that speed has anything to with with accidents is like saying sex has nothing to do with pregnancy.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

There's an awful lot of law-breaking going on. Honest citizens should be protected and law-breakers should be put off the roads. Cameras are useful tools which allow scarce Garda resources to be deployed more effectively.

Statements that cameras are 'revenue generators' are just propaganda from the law-breaking lobby of 'Ordinary Decent Speeders'. It's like criminals complaining about window locks making their job more difficult.

You are missing the point completely. Most people don't have a problem with speed cameras, they have a problem with where they are placed. The majority of them are placed on the safest roads in the country, i.e. motorways and dual-carriageways. This is pure revenue generation. Even the Gardaí have admitted to this at one of the AGSI conferences. Why are they not on the roads where the majority of fatal accidents occur?

I.S.T.

Stekelly wrote: »

I find it funny how people give out about speed cameras on motorways and dual carriageways. For a start these roads actually have speed limits, shock horror. But do peopel really think speed cameras and gards settign up speed traps on country roads would be safe?

That's what fixed cameras are for.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I'd certainly consider a regime with lower or no fines, but where the points accumulate as they do now.

I used to think that would be a good idea but have changed my mind on that. They would still stick the cameras in the roads with highest volume to increase detection rates. What should be done is that they identify a location where there is a high accident rate (consistant, not a spike), place a camera there, review the accident rate in 6 months or a year. If there is no improvement remove it.

knuth

What aggrovates me the most is that Dublin is generally the only county in Ireland to get shafted by the motoring laws.

Would you see Gardaí hiding behind bushes in the Donegal roads? Nope. Speed cameras on country back roads? LOL, noway. ...

Perhaps I've been ignorant but out of the 150+ road deaths on our roads this year, how many happened in Dublin? In the last 4 years, what did Dublins death toll equate to? I'd be pretty confident in saying under 10%.

It fascinates me how there are roads in the country, suitable for 1.5 cars with speed limits of 100km/h. Really, these guys are ****ing morons.

I also wonder if many of the people here have actually traveled on these said roads? I guarantee you would be shocked if you did.

mcwhirter

Yeah have to agree, the back roads here are very bad, I would say that bad signage and not enough warning of severe bend, humpback bridge etc could be a large cause of the crashes. I don't think a speed camera is going to help in this situation. It's just a fact of life in ireland that a lot of the routes are poor but to change them would be a massive undertaking.

Steve

mcwhirter wrote: »

Yeah have to agree, the back roads here are very bad, I would say that bad signage and not enough warning of severe bend, humpback bridge etc could be a large cause of the crashes. I don't think a speed camera is going to help in this situation. It's just a fact of life in ireland that a lot of the routes are poor but to change them would be a massive undertaking.

They wouldn't have to change the roads, just change speed limits in appropriate places.

Solution:
Put up a 30kmh limit on the bad bend or the humpback bridge.
Put a camera at the location set for 40kmh.
Put up lots of advance warning signs.
Sit back and watch the accident rate plummet.

I would applaud openly if 'they' were to use the cameras in this way - they won't though.

AntiVirus

SteveC wrote: »

They wouldn't have to change the roads, just change speed limits in appropriate places.

Solution:
Put up a 30kmh limit on the bad bend or the humpback bridge.
Put a camera at the location set for 40kmh.
Put up lots of advance warning signs.
Sit back and watch the accident rate plummet.

I would applaud openly if 'they' were to use the cameras in this way - they won't though.

Your absolutly right but lets face it, thats never going to happen. The accident rate would plummet but so would the fines.

Guy:Incognito

mcwhirter wrote: »

I wasn't on about cars slowing down. Yes I agree cars do drive too fast here through towns etc but is there not another way to prevent accidents rather than just fining people who of some are innocent especially when camera is hidden. How is that a prevention. It doesn't slow you down if you can not see the camera. You may be on a certain road only once a year and speed down it, get a fine, but you weren't prevented in slowing down in the first place.

How are you innocent just because the camera is hidden? If a Gard hides in an unmarked van outside a bank and grabs you as you come out after robbing it, are you innocent because he wasnt in a sqaud car?


After you get your first speeding fine and points in the post, the idea is you become more vigilant and keep to the limits. If not, they keep mountign up till your banned. No ones fault but your own.

2 points make liitle or no difference insurance wise, so that your warning.

mcwhirter wrote: »

There are a lot of people who are innocent when they have been caught exceeding the limit, sometimes they may not be aware of speed limit.

Not payign enough attention to notice speed signs does not equal innocence.

Chief Admiral wrote: »

at speeds below the posted limit, think junctions, narrow roads etc.
e.

I see noboday has commented on my post where , in the same news story that the OP comes from, tey said that fatal sccidents are down 30-60% in the areas with the speed cameras.

Marcus.Aurelius

Why hasn't cyclopath responded to my post? He just regurgitated more RSA nonsense.

I mean, is that the limit of your debating skills??

mcwhirter

Stekelly wrote: »

How are you innocent just because the camera is hidden? If a Gard hides in an unmarked van outside a bank and grabs you as you come out after robbing it, are you innocent because he wasnt in a sqaud car?


After you get your first speeding fine and points in the post, the idea is you become more vigilant and keep to the limits. If not, they keep mountign up till your banned. No ones fault but your own.

2 points make liitle or no difference insurance wise, so that your warning.





Not payign enough attention to notice speed signs does not equal innocence.




I see noboday has commented on my post where , in the same news story that the OP comes from, tey said that fatal sccidents are down 30-60% in the areas with the speed cameras.

Then why is the camera hidden then , it is to make money for the government and for no other reason, are you naive to think they give a crap about our safety. They only seem to care slightly to get votes.
No, money rules for them and it ain't going to change, well not in my lifetime.

Learn , learn and learn again from other countries mistakes PLEASE IRELAND, you are going to mess it up and there are going to be more deaths not less.

Guy:Incognito

mcwhirter wrote: »

Then why is the camera hidden then , it is to make money for the government and for no other reason, are you naive to think they give a crap about our safety. They only seem to care slightly to get votes.
No, money rules for them and it ain't going to change, well not in my lifetime.

.

None of that explains your "innocent" comment. Whether they are hidden, in plain view or the Gards following you waiting for you to break a speed limit, the fact remains you broke it of your own accord.