Road safety 'made worse by speed cameras'

I.S.T.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178423/Road-safety-worse-speed-cameras.html

Road safety 'made worse by speed cameras'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:14 AM on 08th May 2009

An over-reliance on speed cameras is today blamed for Britain's road safety record lagging well behind other countries.

Comparisons with 23 other developed nations found that the UK ranks 17th for child pedestrian deaths and 11th for pedestrian deaths overall.

The figures, published by the National Audit Office, show that 646 pedestrians and 136 cyclists were killed in 2007 - most on roads with a speed limit of less than 40mph.

Critics of the cameras welcomed the study, which they claimed showed the speed traps were a 'dangerous distraction' to drivers.

A spokesman for the road safety campaign group Safe Speed said: 'The view is these eyes in the sky are all-singing, all-dancing miracle cures.

'They may help but they are certainly no replacement for more properly trained police with the authority to act against irresponsible road users.'

The NAO also called on the Government to set new targets to reduce the numbers of those killed and seriously injured on the roads.

A spokesman for the NAO said: 'Making roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists is a key element in encouraging people to walk and cycle more.'

The Department for Transport said: 'We will continue to promote cycle and pedestrian training to give children the practical skills to keep safe on the roads.'

Seth Brundle

But it misses the point behind speed cameras. They make loads of money!

ART6

kbannon wrote: »

But it misses the point behind speed cameras. They make loads of money!

Correction. That is exactly the point, especially where they are policing unrealistic speed limits and earning a handy few yoyos on the side. No mechanical device can ever properly police roads. Only people with the ability to make informed decisions can do that. No speed camera ever caught a drunk driver, a tailgater at 100 clicks, missus doing her makeup with one hand on the wheel, etc etc.

Ok, an enhanced Garda traffic corps could never police every road, but if the muppets knew there were a lot of them about at all hours but never knew when they were likely to see them, and if the punishments for sheer bad driving were stiffer, then maybe we'd see some results. But then that would cost money rather than making it, wouldn't it?

IMHO speed cameras are simply a another government scam. End of.:mad:

Fighting Irish

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178423/Road-safety-worse-speed-cameras.html

Road safety 'made worse by speed cameras'
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:14 AM on 08th May 2009

An over-reliance on speed cameras is today blamed for Britain's road safety record lagging well behind other countries.

Comparisons with 23 other developed nations found that the UK ranks 17th for child pedestrian deaths and 11th for pedestrian deaths overall.

The figures, published by the National Audit Office, show that 646 pedestrians and 136 cyclists were killed in 2007 - most on roads with a speed limit of less than 40mph.

Critics of the cameras welcomed the study, which they claimed showed the speed traps were a 'dangerous distraction' to drivers.

A spokesman for the road safety campaign group Safe Speed said: 'The view is these eyes in the sky are all-singing, all-dancing miracle cures.

'They may help but they are certainly no replacement for more properly trained police with the authority to act against irresponsible road users.'

The NAO also called on the Government to set new targets to reduce the numbers of those killed and seriously injured on the roads.

A spokesman for the NAO said: 'Making roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists is a key element in encouraging people to walk and cycle more.'

The Department for Transport said: 'We will continue to promote cycle and pedestrian training to give children the practical skills to keep safe on the roads.'

I have a feeling most pedestrian deaths are caused by the pedestrians. These days the whole world stops for one person to cross a road, people have forgot how to cross roads safely.

bookerboy

I'd be inclined to hit the anchors pretty hard when i see a speed camera which can't do the poor fecker behind me any favours.

Del2005

bookerboy wrote: »

I'd be inclined to hit the anchors pretty hard when i see a speed camera which can't do the poor fecker behind me any favours.

Would it not be easier to just drive at the limit?:D

Johnboy Mac

Del2005 wrote: »

Would it not be easier to just drive at the limit?:D

Here we go again.

The answer is NO! And I'm not going into detail simply because if you don't know there's no point.

Guy:Incognito

bookerboy wrote: »

I'd be inclined to hit the anchors pretty hard when i see a speed camera.

Which would imply your going way over the limit.

Anan1

bookerboy wrote: »

I'd be inclined to hit the anchors pretty hard when i see a speed camera which can't do the poor fecker behind me any favours.

Stekelly wrote: »

Which would imply your going way over the limit.

People often panic and jam on when they see a camera or Garda car even when they were within the limit in the first place. Must be a residue of guilt for the things they got away with!

copacetic

kbannon wrote: »

But it misses the point behind speed cameras. They make loads of money!

it also doesn't say anything at all about things being 'made worse by speed cameras'

Guy:Incognito

Anan1 wrote: »

People often panic and jam on when they see a camera or Garda car even when they were within the limit in the first place. Must be a residue of guilt for the things they got away with!

I usually put these people in "bad driver" catagory. At best, in traffic it'll casuse a phantom traffic jam, at worst..........

Part of driving is being aware of what your doing and what speed your at ,not jamming on at the sight of a bit of luminous material.

copacetic wrote: »

it also doesn't say anything at all about things being 'made worse by speed cameras'

Yeah. Either way ,If people are running over pedestrians because they are looking at/for speed cameras, the problem isnt the camera.

TheNog

The camera is not designed for anything else but to detect vehicles being driven over the set speed limit and as such is only one tool in the bag of tricks to increase road safety. It is not and never should be used as a bee and end all but should be used in conjunction with proper Police presence as well as help from the general public.

If there is a rise in road deaths then it is not the fault of the cameras but it is the fault of proper policing/enforcement.

I can never understand this statement of "revenue generation". The speed limits are posted for everyone to see whether we agree with them or not.

ART6

TheNog wrote: »

The camera is not designed for anything else but to detect vehicles being driven over the set speed limit and as such is only one tool in the bag of tricks to increase road safety. It is not and never should be used as a bee and end all but should be used in conjunction with proper Police presence as well as help from the general public.

If there is a rise in road deaths then it is not the fault of the cameras but it is the fault of proper policing/enforcement.

I can never understand this statement of "revenue generation". The speed limits are posted for everyone to see whether we agree with them or not.

"The fault of proper......" Oh. Right. I didn't know that:D

With respect to you and the work you do, I would take issue with your closing remark. Surely all law should be enacted to serve the public good, should be logical, and should be seen to be fair and reasonable. Speed limits can serve several purposes, but perhaps the most important one is that they can give a driver advanced warning that road conditions are changing in such a way that a particular maximum speed is appropriate. In that case the regulated speed limit should also be reasonable and be seen by an experience driver to be such. So, a limit of 50 clicks is reasonable and sensible in a built up area, as may be an even lower limit by schools at opening and closing times.

Unfortunately far too many roads do not have realistic speed limits. I suspect many of us will have encountered those on roads where, having passed through the zone, one is left wondering what the hell all that was about. The road was no different before and after the limit, and when a speed camera is installed in that stretch, particularly when it is immediately beyond the limit sign, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it it there more for its financial than its safety purposes. In the UK where I drive a lot on business, that is certainly the case.

It also seems, although I have no expert knowledge to back up the statement, that far too often limits are set by local authority staff who have some personal hang up to exercise -- slow everyone down for the sake of the environment, keep vehicles to the same speed as me when I'm on me bike with me lycra pants, etc etc.

Yes, it's true that speed limits are there for everyone to see whether or not we agree with them, but if they are going to be of value then they must be sensible and placed to provide advanced information. Reducing a motorway limit by 40 k immediately around a sweeping bend and putting a speed camera there does nothing to encourage drivers to see the law as reasonable.

godtabh

Where does it say that speed cameras reduce safety?

Critics of the cameras welcomed the study, which they claimed showed the speed traps were a 'dangerous distraction' to drivers.

But I feel they may have a different agenda in saying this.

Any facts to back up what was said? No.

A load of **** TBH

Saruman

There is some truth in that they are a distraction. This has also come up before. There was a camera on the N11 at Donnybrook approaching the village. I was driving there one day for the first time in ages and only noticed the camera in the corner of my eye as I approached traffic lights (green). I looked down to check my speed, decided I was under the speed limit and was grand, I looked back up (only a few seconds here) and next thing I know the lights have gone from amber to red and I had to hit the breaks.

First point, I was under the speed limit.
Second point, I only took my eye off the road for a second or two to check my speedo.

Had that camera not been there, I would have seen the lights go amber and come to a stop instead I missed the change and was forced to brake hard or risk breaking the red light.

The fact that camera is no longer there possibly shows there were complaints about it. It may not even be a speed camera, it might have been a red light camera but that does not mean anything as the problem is the same.

No doubt there will still be some posters on their high horse blaming me for not paying attention and to that I say in advance, "get real". I bet everything I own that if they see a speed camera they will check their speed unconsciously.

-Chris-

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

'They may help but they are certainly no replacement for more properly trained police with the authority to act against irresponsible road users.'

This is the only sentence I'd take from that article, the rest is sensationalism or waffle IMHO.

Saab Ed

Friends of mine live in the English midlands and sitting in the car with them is just a panic. They know where every speed camera is and they just slow down for them and then speed back up again ( not double the limit or near it but over ) as does everybody else. Its just so funny to see so many people driving along that hit the brakes for a couple of seconds and then on they go again.

godtabh

Saab Ed wrote: »

Friends of mine live in the English midlands and sitting in the car with them is just a panic. They know where every speed camera is and they just slow down for them and then speed back up again ( not double the limit or near it but over ) as does everybody else. Its just so funny to see so many people driving along that hit the brakes for a couple of seconds and then on they go again.

its not difficult to stay at the correct speed limit regardless if you agree with it or not

galwaytt

TheNog wrote: »

The camera is not designed for anything else but to detect vehicles being driven over the set speed limit and as such is only one tool in the bag of tricks to increase road safety.

complete and utter fiction. There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that speed cameras do anything to promote road safety. The road accidents we're worried in the main, happen in places where there are none, and where there can be none, and at times or conditions that they wouldn't work, anyway. Cameras cannot detect dangerous, careless, drunken or just downright stupid driving, end of story. Page 41 HERE, table 46 is conclusive proof of that fact (4.6%). Similarly, seeing as 42% of two-vehicle accidents were caused by 'went to wrong side of road', cameras wouldn't do anything there, either. That's another 15 fatalities, btw.........

Your own 'employers' records, which I'm sure you can access, show only a small % of accidents attributable to breaing the POSTED speed limit. And even those speeding ones are NOT occuring where the camera's are/are used - dual carriageways, N routes, etc. In evidence of this, I would put forward Page XIII of the RSA Collision Factbook 2007 where geographically, camera-popular sites are generally to the lower end of the collision frequency, I think we can agree. Page 9 of the tome also specifically states 'exceeded safe speed limit'. As you well know, that is a deliberate obfuscation, as that is not the posted speed limit. There is a huge difference.

Look at it this way - we could reduce fatalities right now, across the board, by 20 without spending one cent: 20 people died in 2007 not wearing a seatbelt, and a further 68 fatalities were 'not known' to wear a seat belt. Dittto for motorcycles - 12 people killed with NO helmet, and 20 more 'unknown' - how is it possible to have 'unknown' ?? They either had a belt, or helmet on, or not. The only thing that will change those numbers, is GTC, on the ground. Not cameras.

TheNog wrote: »

If there is a rise in road deaths then it is not the fault of the cameras but it is the fault of proper policing/enforcement.

...because camera's do contribute directly to the reduction in the level of covert traffic policing, they by extension are a direct contributor to the rise spoken of.

TheNog wrote: »

I can never understand this statement of "revenue generation". The speed limits are posted for everyone to see whether we agree with them or not.

And, if camera's are not contributing to a reduction, then you need to look at what they do increase. And that is, undisputably, revenue.

Quite apart from my issue with cameras, generally, the remaining items on the table will remain, irrespective of camera use: as long as the minority of the minority of accidents have exceeding the posted limit as a cause of accidents, spending anything more then 1c on them is a wreckless waste of money.

If the Powers That Be are really interested in reducing fatalities, they'd address the causes of the MAJORITY of causes, first..........

Mr. Presentable

galwaytt wrote: »

There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that speed cameras do anything to promote road safety. The road accidents we're worried in the main, happen in places where there are none,
..........

I don't know the statistics for RTAs and their proximity to cameras, but your statement above is clearly contradictory. Your second sentence definitely implies there are fewer accidents where there are cameras.

Saab Ed

kearnsr wrote: »

its not difficult to stay at the correct speed limit regardless if you agree with it or not

Its not hard to exceed them either :D

ART6

nipplenuts wrote: »

I don't know the statistics for RTAs and their proximity to cameras, but your statement above is clearly contradictory. Your second sentence definitely implies there are fewer accidents where there are cameras.

IMO too many government statistics follow your reasoning. A camera is placed on a road where there have been few accidents, and for some time there are no more. Therefore the camera reduced the number of accidents to zero.

That of course is nonsense. It is not possible to say that something has not happened because some action. It is only possible to say that something did happen because of an action. The science of random events screws up the former argument. What would be more significant would be statistics that showed the accident rate on a given road for (say) five years before a camera was installed compared with that over five years afterward. Even then, because of random influences, the stats would be unreliable. A large lump of statistical variation would need to be applied.

What that suggests to me is that cameras may have a place in some locations, near schools for example even if their benefit could not be proven, and that ideally they should be the average speed type rather than the spot detectors. They should not be placed where some fanatic with an axe to grind thinks they will catch the highest number of drivers, since that certainly is what happened in the UK and appears to be occurring here. North Wales comes immediately to mind, where the Chief Constable clearly thinks all motorists should be proceeded by the man with the red flag and be prosecuted if that man exceeds a funerary pace.

cyclopath2001

ART6 wrote: »

IMO too many government statistics follow your reasoning. A camera is placed on a road where there have been few accidents, and for some time there are no more. Therefore the camera reduced the number of accidents to zero.

Or improved the quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists in the area, intimidated by speeding cars. The problem with speeding is more than accidents.

ART6 wrote: »

the Chief Constable clearly thinks all motorists should be proceeded by the man with the red flag and be prosecuted if that man exceeds a funerary pace.

Ah the fictional 'man with red flag' yarn, I was wondering when this hoary old lie would be aired again. You do know that it only ever applied to coal-burning steam engines, much in the same way as special loads get escorts today?

stealthyspeeder

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Or improved the quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists in the area, intimidated by speeding cars.

Are you in the right forum ok?

How about improving the motorists quailty of drive by only allowing cyclists to cycle in cycle lanes? Or silencing ferrari engines so they dont scare old women? ... cop on!!

eringobragh

stealthyspeeder wrote: »

Are you in the right forum ok?

How about improving the motorists quailty of drive by only allowing cyclists to cycle in cycle lanes? Or silencing ferrari engines so they dont scare old women? ... cop on!!

I don't know why people bother replying to him anymore he's obviously no interest in cars.

Suggestion for Motors Mods:

Can we have a "Gay Byrne related topics" subforum and jam in all the speeding threads for non-car enthusiasts to troll in.

Anan1

Easy now, lads. Like most other arguments, there are two sides to the one on speeding - and I say that as a speeder myself.;)

eringobragh

Anan1 wrote: »

Easy now, lads. Like most other arguments, there are two sides to the one on speeding - and I say that as a speeder myself.;)

peasant

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Or improved the quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists in the area, intimidated by speeding cars. The problem with speeding is more than accidents.

There is a point to this actually.

I for example am a prisoner in my own house. The only way I can semi-safely leave it is cocooned in my car. My driveway is on a bend on a narrow country road. Walking or cycling on that road is next to impossible ...mainly because of the fact that most drivers choose to ignore the 60 km/h limit there and come zooming past. As there is not enough room for two cars plus one pedestrian/cyclist, the few times I was walking out on that road I had to literally jump into the ditch three-four times within 150 meters so not to get run over.

If people stuck to the limit there, it would help greatly

Saab Ed

Just an observation here ( with nothing much conclusive, its only my opinion )

When I lived in Kildare the Guards seemed hell bent on shooting fish in a barrel. Always in the 40 and 50 mph zones on the dual carraige way (which were totally unrealistic ) but never to be seen in and around the estates or off the beaten track. I can especially remember a stretch of road heading for Athy and it was the first chance you got to over take for miles. The limit was 50 mph and sure enough at the end of that stretch you would see a garda car very often. :mad:

By contrast I now live up in Meath and it seems to be a completly different approach. I have to hand it to them up here , they do actualy seem to be in places where it makes a difference i.e roads entering towns and outside housing estates. One stretch of road in particular has seen a noted change of attitude by everybody in the town and its now somewhere you wouldnt dare speed. And to be fair the garda car is parked obvious enough and you could see the speed trap from half a mile away so its being very effective.

Wouldnt it be fair to say that cameras placed outside schools and the like might not be such a bad idea but on bigger faster stretches of road only good old fashioned policing can really make them safer along with better attitudes from some drivers.

ART6

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Or improved the quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists in the area, intimidated by speeding cars. The problem with speeding is more than accidents.

Ah the fictional 'man with red flag' yarn, I was wondering when this hoary old lie would be aired again. You do know that it only ever applied to coal-burning steam engines, much in the same way as special loads get escorts today?

As I recall the thread was mainly about the justification for cameras using accident rates, but if the accident issue is removed then what are the other objections to speeding? Offending cyclists?

As for your closing remark, I am sure you are fully aware my comment was slightly tongue in cheek? What and who it was applied to a century or more ago is irrelevant in that case. I was simply posting a comment upon an existing thread, not attempting a historical treatise.

cyclopath2001

ART6 wrote: »

As I recall the thread was mainly about the justification for cameras using accident rates, but if the accident issue is removed then what are the other objections to speeding? Offending cyclists?

Noise, the increased severity of injury relative to the speed of a collision, intimidation of vulnerable non-motorists (cyclists, children, the elderly). Even if you drive, if there is speeding, this can make it quite difficult to merge.

So, there are many valid reasons to enforce speed limits. It's not just about preventing crashes.

galwaytt

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Or improved the quality of life for pedestrians and cyclists in the area, intimidated by speeding cars.

How about quality of life for everyone, by cyclists adopting to follow, say.........ROTR ?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The problem with speeding is more than accidents.

...what you mean is, and the RSA's own figures are there for all to see, is that you have that the wrong way around.... i.e. the problem with accidents is (a lot, lot) more than speeding....

Mikros

galwaytt wrote: »

complete and utter fiction. There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere, that speed cameras do anything to promote road safety.

It dosn't really take much effort to find numerous studies done in various countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK) that generally point to a sustained reduction in fatal and serious collisions around speed cameras. Most of these studies control for regression to the mean effects - so it takes account the general overall trend downwards in fatalities.

Speed cameras should not be the be all and end all of road safety, but they do play a part. Having an transparent and consistent way to setting speed limits for all parts of the country is far more important IMO. The current system for speed limits brings the whole idea into disrepute.


A few examples:
Australia - When operating at maximum coverage, the Queensland speed camera program was estimated to have produced a reduction in fatal crashes of around 45% in areas within 2km of speed camera sites. Corresponding reductions of 31%, 39% 19% and 21% were estimated for hospitalisation, medically treated, other injury and non-injury crashes respectively.

UK - There was a 42% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) at sites where safety cameras were introduced

NewDubliner

galwaytt wrote: »

How about quality of life for everyone, by cyclists adopting to follow, say.........ROTR ?

This should be agreed, but for motorists too.

galwaytt wrote: »

.the problem with accidents is (a lot, lot) more than speeding....

This is also true.

galwaytt

Mikros wrote: »

UK - There was a 42% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) at sites where safety cameras were introduced

First thing: that is years out of date.

Secondly, the first paragraph shows you why the justification is bogus: In 2000, a system was introduced that allowed eight pilot areas to recover
the costs of operating speed and red-light cameras (safety cameras) from
fines resulting from enforcement.

In other words: Revenue Generation. Siting camera's became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fit more, get more cash to the local authority, Fit more, get more cast to the local authority........see the trend ? It's also the reason the Home Office stopped the local authorities keeping the cash. And guess what happened ? Exactly, almost simultaneously, the local authorities stopped installing cameras...........isn't that amazing ? So, if it was a safety issue, why stop installing them ?

And, around the same time ( 4 years ago iirc...), the Home Office changed the law so that all camera's became overt, not covert, on foot of 'revenue' complaints. That's why they're all now 'signal yellow'.

cyclopath2001

galwaytt wrote: »

How about quality of life for everyone, by cyclists adopting to follow, say.........ROTR ?

You seem to be implying that all cyclists break the RoTR and motorists don't.

A truth is that when cyclists break the RoTR, they always know they're doing it. I accept that this is not a justification.

Many motorists are ignorant of road traffic regulations that they break routinely (e.g. breaches of the overtaking regs, running amber lights, failing to yield when joining a major road, not indicating, parking on the footpath). With speed, which, at least they know is governed by law, they rationalise away the law-breaking with statements about illogical speed limits and 'revenue cameras'.

galwaytt wrote: »

i.e. the problem with accidents is (a lot, lot) more than speeding....

No disagreement there, but it's equally valid to say that the problem with speeding is more than just the safety of the driver.

Fighting Irish

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I have a feeling most pedestrian deaths are caused by the pedestrians. These days the whole world stops for one person to cross a road, people have forgot how to cross roads safely.

i fully agree.. even the famous add on tv where she's textin the lad is her fault.

Zube

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

A truth is that when cyclists break the RoTR, they always know they're doing it.

This sentence is not true.

galwaytt

Zube wrote: »

This sentence is not true.

What nonsense. There isn't a person - on two or four wheels - that doesn't know that Red means Stop. Nor that the white line at junctions is the Stop line. Nor, that bicycles are required to be lit up, and I'd wager most know that they're not allowed to cycle on footpath's, too.......

ART6

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

A truth is that when cyclists break the RoTR, they always know they're doing it. I accept that this is not a justification..

Zube wrote: »

This sentence is not true.

I think that what cyclopath is trying to do is to illustrate the inherent mental superiority of cyclists over motorists, implying that cyclists break the law deliberately while motorists do so because they are too stupid to realise that they are:D

*goes off to buy lycra pants and a bike and join the intelligentsia*

galwaytt

ok, hijack:

Now this speed camera, I DO approve of !

MrPudding

Mikros wrote: »

UK - There was a 42% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) at sites where safety cameras were introduced

This is actually a very good point, and one that has been raised many times by other posters and myself. I don’t think anyone would deny the a speed camera would improve the road safety statistics for the area it was installed in. The problem is, they are really being installed in areas where there is a big problem to start with.

They might be popping up in places where people are breaking the speed limit, but that is not necessarily increasing road safety. Doing an extra 10kph on the N11 is not that life threatening in the grand scheme of things. I would doubt very mush a camera, or mobile speed check would do much to improve the already fairly high safety record for that stretch of road. Similarly, cameras on perfectly straight sections of motorway don’t do much for road safety. There are so few accidents on straight pieces of motorway as it is.

Cameras should be used for behaviour shaping. They don’t always get it right in the UK but they do occasionally. I live in Buckingham and have driven and rode a bike extensively in the surrounding counties. There are plenty of cameras on straight sections, which I doubt do little to improve road safety but I would guess do plenty for revenue generation. What they also have are cameras in dangerous areas. I am happy to see these. They tend to be reasonably well signposted, or at least hinted at. This has the effect of actually slowing drivers down in dangerous section and thereby reducing accident rates for areas that have high numbers of fatalities or collisions.

In my ideal driving world speed cameras would be simply used to shape behaviour. They would be located in accident black spots and would be highly visible and heavily publicized. I would have countdown signs from quite far away “Speed camera in 800 metres , Speed Camera in 700 metres… etc.” This would ensure most drivers would have actually slowed down by the time they got to the hazard.

I would have more coppers on the road tackling the things that actually kill people on the roads like dangerous driving and overtaking. I would push driving education and generally try to improve driver’s general ability.

Having speed cameras on the M1 will not reduce road deaths on country roads in Donegal where people are driving below the speed limit but beyond the capability of the road, their car and their talent.

Inappropriate speed kills.

MrP

cyclopath2001

ART6 wrote: »

while motorists do so because they are too stupid to realise that they are:D[

Not stupid, just ignorant, there is a difference.

But to come to any agreement about speed cameras, everyone needs to agree why we need to have speed limits. It seems to me that there's a lot of evasion on this topic.

Seth Brundle

@IrishSpeedTraps - I'm only aware of the fact that you have started the same thread in the Commuting & Transport - please don't do this!

ART6

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Not stupid, just ignorant, there is a difference.

But to come to any agreement about speed cameras, everyone needs to agree why we need to have speed limits. It seems to me that there's a lot of evasion on this topic.

That I agree with. The point that seems to be missed about limits is that they are necessarily established with the average (or poor/inexperienced) driver in mind rather than the expert. Two hundred kph on a motorway is not necessarily dangerous for an expert in a high performance car, but it is for someone who has just passed a test. What does devalue limits though is when they appear to be illogical irrespective of the quality of drivers. For example, in Waterford we have a dual carriageway ring road with no buildings on it for miles, yet it has a speed limit of 60 kph. Everyone ignores it as a result. I believe we need a national expert authority to set speed limits instead of leaving most of it to local authorities.

cyclopath2001

ART6 wrote: »

Two hundred kph on a motorway is not necessarily dangerous for an expert in a high performance car, but it is for someone who has just passed a test. What does devalue limits though is when they appear to be illogical irrespective of the quality of drivers.

This implies that you believe the only reason for a speed limit is the ability of a driver to handle a car at that speed.

ART6 wrote: »

For example, in Waterford we have a dual carriageway ring road with no buildings on it for miles, yet it has a speed limit of 60 kph. Everyone ignores it as a result. I believe we need a national expert authority to set speed limits instead of leaving most of it to local authorities.

I've no problem with seemingly inappropriate limits being challenged by submissions to the authorities, but, just as I disagree with cyclists running red lights, I disagree with drivers breaking posted speed limits.

First and foremost, everyone should agree why we have speed limits.

ART6

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

This implies that you believe the only reason for a speed limit is the ability of a driver to handle a car at that speed.

I've no problem with seemingly inappropriate limits being challenged by submissions to the authorities, but, just as I disagree with cyclists running red lights, I disagree with drivers breaking posted speed limits.

First and foremost, everyone should agree why we have speed limits.

My comment did not imply or suggest that which you claim it did. If you read my post you might have noticed that I said limits are there at the levels they are mainly because not everyone is an expert driver. If everyone was in possession of an advanced driver's certificate then possibly higher limits would be feasible. That is what I was implying, so I would prefer that you don't continue to put words into my mouth.

I.S.T.

kbannon wrote: »

@IrishSpeedTraps - I'm only aware of the fact that you have started the same thread in the Commuting & Transport - please don't do this!

Ok, sorry bout that.

galwaytt

ART6 wrote: »

..... I believe we need a national expert authority to set speed limits instead of leaving most of it to local authorities.

..oh sweet jeebus, that's all we need, another quango, probably also headed by Gay Byrne......:rolleyes:

...why do we need another 'body' ? Why can't those that are in this area DO THEIR JOBS PROPERLY ? And if they can't/don't/won't.....just fire them and get someone else. But we don't need EXTRA bodies for this.

No offence to you Art, but this sort of 'solution' is what has the Civil Service the unmanageable behemoth that it is. Overstaffed, Overpaid, and Over Here !

cyclopath2001

ART6 wrote: »

If everyone was in possession of an advanced driver's certificate then possibly higher limits would be feasible.

So the skill and expertese of the drivers are the only factors? No other reasons for speed limits?

ART6

galwaytt wrote: »

..oh sweet jeebus, that's all we need, another quango, probably also headed by Gay Byrne......:rolleyes:

...why do we need another 'body' ? Why can't those that are in this area DO THEIR JOBS PROPERLY ? And if they can't/don't/won't.....just fire them and get someone else. But we don't need EXTRA bodies for this.

No offence to you Art, but this sort of 'solution' is what has the Civil Service the unmanageable behemoth that it is. Overstaffed, Overpaid, and Over Here !

No. I am proposing getting well rid of those who don't or can't do their jobs properly and setting up a national body under a minister (NOTE not another bloody quango).

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

So the skill and expertese of the drivers are the only factors? No other reasons for speed limits?

Oh cyclopath, why do you adopt this confrontational style all of the time? What other reason could those who set speed limits have? They need to cater for the mean, and some of the time they are influenced by factors that are illogical. If it makes you happy, I have held a full driving licence for over forty years. I have driven all sorts of vehicles including high performance ones in an number of countries and I have never yet even incurred even a parking ticket. I like to think I have some idea of what it is I am talking about.