RSA getting some sense

smash

Heard a new ad this morning on the radio "Most deaths on our roads happen on regional and local roads... don't turn local into lethal"

Now, lets place bets that the new speed camera's will still be on the M50!

elmoslattery

They make more money if they put it on the m50! They don't really care about saving lives.

Gophur

elmoslattery wrote: »

They make more money if they put it on the m50! They don't really care about saving lives.

What an absolutely stupid thing to say! Ridiculous.

Anan1

Gophur wrote: »

What an absolutely stupid thing to say! Ridiculous.

This might be a bit more convincing with a supporting argument.

Max Power1

Gophur wrote: »

What an absolutely stupid thing to say! Ridiculous.

He's right to be fair.

As i posted before, speed cameras on motorways do NOT save lives, they are purely a revenue generating excersise. Speed cameras on local roads may not turn a profit, but would save lives.

I think I can safely say which the RSA care about more!

robtri

elmoslattery wrote: »

They make more money if they put it on the m50! They don't really care about saving lives.

yeah cause the M50 traffic moves so fast it does.....

IIRC the new sped cameras privately owned have been told to stay away from motorways in general

keithclancy

Max Power1 wrote: »

He's right to be fair.

As i posted before, speed cameras on motorways do NOT save lives, they are purely a revenue generating excersise. Speed cameras on local roads may not turn a profit, but would save lives.

I think I can safely say which the RSA care about more!

They do however improve the flow of traffic.

Max Power1

keithclancy wrote: »

They do however improve the flow of traffic.

When idiots brake just in front of them with no warning?

Cookie_Monster

elmoslattery wrote: »

They make more money if they put it on the m50! They don't really care about saving lives.

I disagree with that tbh. road deaths are expensive, its in the RSA interest to lower roads deaths, to reduce the cost involved to all agencies.

Trampas

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I disagree with that tbh. road deaths are expensive, its in the RSA interest to lower roads deaths, to reduce the cost involved to all agencies.

Deaths are cheap it is the badly injured that cost as fortune as some will require 24/7 care for the rest of their lives.

Anan1

Trampas wrote: »

Deaths are cheap it is the badly injured that cost as fortune as some will require 24/7 care for the rest of their lives.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I disagree with that tbh. road deaths are expensive, its in the RSA interest to lower roads deaths, to reduce the cost involved to all agencies.

Both deaths and injuries cost a lot of money - perhaps things would be different if it was the RSA's money. I think what we have here is a typical weakness of our system - the prioritisation of being seen to be doing something over actually making a long-term difference.

SV

Gophur wrote: »

What an absolutely stupid thing to say! Ridiculous.

Would you care to explain why they don't have speed cameras on regional or local roads seeing as most fatal road accidents happen on these roads?


Or would you like to admit that they don't actually care about saving lives and it is indeed about the money?

KingIsabella

elmoslattery wrote: »

They make more money if they put it on the m50! They don't really care about saving lives.

anyone know how much they actually make off of speed camera fines?

keithclancy

Max Power1 wrote: »

When idiots brake just in front of them with no warning?

Just from experience on the motorway when theres a speed camera sign everyone drives at the same speed and it moves much more quickly.

Stops the numptys booting down the overtaking lane, slowing down and speeding up, trying to merge back with the middle lane. Thats what causes traffic jams on the motorway.

IMO Average speed cameras are excellent, I remember before they installed them on the A12 near Utrecht you may as well get out of your car and walk, after they installed them the Jams aren't anywhere near as bad.

Variable speed limits are a must imo, dropping the limit down to 50 for a congested stretch speeds things up much more quickly.

See here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8600554.stm

Another system they've started implementing around the Netherlands (Green Wave) is basically setting a target speed for people to travel at on the ring roads around cities. It means if you stay at that speed, the timing of the lights on the ring road will allow you to always have a green light, makes a huge difference.

See here:

That one is a target AND a limit

IMO Speed cameras don't 'save lives' no camera is going to stop someone being a total numpty.

Gophur

SV wrote: »

Would you care to explain why they don't have speed cameras on regional or local roads seeing as most fatal road accidents happen on these roads?

...............

Who do you mean by "they" ? The RSA?

SV wrote: »

............

Or would you like to admit that they don't actually care about saving lives and it is indeed about the money?

Admit? You want me to admit what?


What part of Road Safety Authority do you have trouble with?

The suggestion that the Road Safety Authority is not interested in saving lives is laughable. While the way they achieve their objectives may be questionable, their objective is clear and unambiguous.

The RSA has one objective, to make our roads safer. It has no role, or interest, in generating revenue. Its funding comes from the Govt. how they raise it is another thing. Speed cameras and speeding initiatives are not designed to be revenue generating schemes, despite what 99% of objectors state. They may be in the wrong locations, but their presence is designed to influence drivers' thinking and behaviour. They are a blunt tool and, probably, highly inefficient.

Anyone, opposed to such cameras, care to suggest a different approach for preventing inappropriate speeding?

Anan1

Gophur wrote: »

Anyone, opposed to such cameras, care to suggest a different approach for preventing inappropriate speeding?

I'm not opposed to cameras per se, i'd just like to see better placement.

jimmycrackcorm

keithclancy wrote: »

Just from experience on the motorway when theres a speed camera sign everyone drives at the same speed and it moves much more quickly.

Stops the numptys booting down the overtaking lane, slowing down and speeding up, trying to merge back with the middle lane. Thats what causes traffic jams on the motorway.

.

I like your theory but I think it is just that. I don't see the M1 camera having any effect nor do I recall the camera on the M50 near Ballymun disturbing traffic patterns.

Unless of course I suggest that I don't see numptys doing as you suggest and you leap up and retort that it is because there is a camera there. A genuine case of cause following effect.

keithclancy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I like your theory but I think it is just that. I don't see the M1 camera having any effect nor do I recall the camera on the M50 near Ballymun disturbing traffic patterns.

Unless of course I suggest that I don't see numptys doing as you suggest and you leap up and retort that it is because there is a camera there. A genuine case of cause following effect.

Its not a theory, Holland has around 7 million cars on the road and is half the size of Ireland.

If they didn't implement this stuff you wouldn't be able to get anywhere.

Theres hardly any speed cameras on motorways in the south and you can see the behaviour totally change.

With average speed camera stretches everyone stays bang on the limit. If you get caught speeding by a camera then you've noone to blame but yourself, they are stuck in one place, they don't come out of nowhere, you can download them to your satnav and theres signage warning you that they are there !

Unrestricted Autobahn in Germany are some of THE worst spots for traffic jams.

MagicSean

SV wrote: »

Would you care to explain why they don't have speed cameras on regional or local roads seeing as most fatal road accidents happen on these roads?


Or would you like to admit that they don't actually care about saving lives and it is indeed about the money?

Well for one thing it is difficult to find a good spot to place them on back roads. They need a long stretch of straight wide road with good visibility.

Cookie_Monster

k_mac wrote: »

Well for one thing it is difficult to find a good spot to place them on back roads. They need a long stretch of straight wide road with good visibility.

what are you on about?

The need about 10-15 metres of road (if even) with markings to work.

MagicSean

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what are you on about?

The need about 10-15 metres of road (if even) with markings to work.

You also have to make allowances for the people who slap on the breaks straight away.

Cookie_Monster

k_mac wrote: »

You also have to make allowances for the people who slap on the breaks straight away.

fixed camera will only ever focus on a 5-10 metre section of road where the markings are. what allowances do you intend to make for an immovable camera?

MagicSean

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

fixed camera will only ever focus on a 5-10 metre section of road where the markings are. what allowances do you intend to make for an immovable camera?

Someone comes around a corner, realises there is a camera just ahead, slaps on the breaks, person behind them goes straight into the back. What is there you dont understand?

robtri

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

fixed camera will only ever focus on a 5-10 metre section of road where the markings are. what allowances do you intend to make for an immovable camera?

the allowence that people are stupid, they come around a corner see the markings ont he road and whether they speeding or not they slam on brakes... now the next car or two around the corner has a higher than normal chance of slamming into this car....

K mac beat me too it

robtri

will add to this

A reported 157 people died on the roads over the past three years as a result of speed and a further 310 received serious injuries

Source : http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/mobile-speed-camera-initiative-rolled-out-106084.html

Cookie_Monster

k_mac wrote: »

Someone comes around a corner, realises there is a camera just ahead, slaps on the breaks, person behind them goes straight into the back. What is there you dont understand?

so the person behind was following to close to react, their fault. you should be able to slow enough when the car in front makes any kind of manoeuvre.

Riskymove

Max Power1 wrote: »

He's right to be fair.

As i posted before, speed cameras on motorways do NOT save lives, they are purely a revenue generating excersise. Speed cameras on local roads may not turn a profit, but would save lives.

I think I can safely say which the RSA care about more!

are the RSA actually responsible for the placing of cameras?

do they get the money from fines?

daveharnett

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so the person behind was following to close to react, their fault. you should be able to slow enough when the car in front makes any kind of manoeuvre.

You could say the same of all the single vehicle fatalities on our roads. The purpose of the RSA is to reduce collisions, regardless of who is 'at fault'.

Max Power1

Riskymove wrote: »

are the RSA actually responsible for the placing of cameras?

do they get the money from fines?

Are the RSA responsible for running gender biased ads funded by the taxpayer?

daveharnett

keithclancy wrote: »

Another system they've started implementing around the Netherlands (Green Wave) is basically setting a target speed for people to travel at on the ring roads around cities. It means if you stay at that speed, the timing of the lights on the ring road will allow you to always have a green light, makes a huge difference.

That's a really good idea. Would save a lot of fuel/co2 by preventing needless acceleration/braking cycles too.

dr.fuzzenstein

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so the person behind was following to close to react, their fault. you should be able to slow enough when the car in front makes any kind of manoeuvre.

Good point, but why deliberately create a situation that is dangerous and causes accidents only so that someone can jump out from behind the bushes and shout "you fault! should watch where you're going! na na naa naa naaa!"

Cookie_Monster

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Good point, but why deliberately create a situation that is dangerous and causes accidents only so that someone can jump out from behind the bushes and shout "you fault! should watch where you're going! na na naa naa naaa!"

catching speeders and punishing them by having their car wrecked and taking tail gaiters off the road too. fool proof it is! :pac::pac:

keithclancy

daveharnett wrote: »

That's a really good idea. Would save a lot of fuel/co2 by preventing needless acceleration/braking cycles too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7998182.stm

Previously the Department for Transport (DfT) had discouraged the systems which reduce fuel use, resulting in less tax being paid to the Treasury.

Maybe Gormley should have though about this rather than getting everyone to go out and buy frikkin Hybrids.

MagicSean

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so the person behind was following to close to react, their fault. you should be able to slow enough when the car in front makes any kind of manoeuvre.

Yes it's a great feeling to know you were in the right when lying in a hospital bed.

coolmoose

Trampas wrote: »

Deaths are cheap it is the badly injured that cost as fortune as some will require 24/7 care for the rest of their lives.

well if u call around €2.75m per death in an RTC cheap...fatal RTCs cost this country nearly a billion euro per year! but i agree, long-term care is also very costly.

Cookie_Monster

Just heard that ad. Another load of **** from Gaybo is all I could think tbh.

they may as well just say "driving kills and don't do it". :mad:

L1011

coolmoose wrote: »

well if u call around €2.75m per death in an RTC cheap...fatal RTCs cost this country nearly a billion euro per year! but i agree, long-term care is also very costly.

2.75M is a worst case scenario figure for the social cost of a fatal RTC.

coolmoose

exactly, all factors are taken into consideration. cost is not just the money paid for the hospital bed, it's also lost manhours etc. social cost is just as important, if you mean just the "price" of the emergency response and cleanup then obviously it's a much smaller figure. still doesn't detract from the fact that the fatal RTC has cost the economy and society much more.

€2.75m was the cost as of 2008.

L1011

You're ignoring the "worst case scenario" bit of my post.

marious

Its exactly like that, speed cameras and Gardai are always where its easy to catch somebody i.e. on motorway. Drivers speeding by 15-20 km/h, Gardai hiding behind the trees and corners, off they go, money rollin' in and somebody still thinks this is live saving? Don't be ridiculous. Its just pure money hunt. Dangerous junctions, villages and towns full of people, areas close to schools...these are the places most accident prone and where cameras or Gardai should be present forcing drivers to slow down and being punished.

coolmoose

MYOB wrote: »

You're ignoring the "worst case scenario" bit of my post.

no i'm not, i said exactly, agreed with you, and said €2.75m was the 2008 figure.

edit: I do know that this figure incorporates lost output, human & medical costs, damage to property, insurance and policing costs (i.e. worst case scenarios), and is based on year 2000 UK figures updated to 2002 Irish data and then further updated using GDP growth to 2008 figures, but that is the estimated economic cost of a fatal RTC to the Irish economy. Obviously each and every RTC is different, it still doesn't make these figures any less valid, every fatal RTC is costing this country: The emergency response, loss of working manhours, loss of the victims spending power, rising insurance costs, damage to property etc. To say that a fatal RTC is cheap is wrong, no matter which figures, (worst case or not) you look at.

Riskymove

Max Power1 wrote: »

Are the RSA responsible for running gender biased ads funded by the taxpayer?

yes they are


but they are not in charge of placing or operating of speed cameras...therefore all this upset should be aimed against those who are

galwaytt

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what are you on about?

The need about 10-15 metres of road (if even) with markings to work.

....that's the county roads (Rxxx) in Galway out, then........

k_mac wrote: »

Someone comes around a corner, realises there is a camera just ahead, slaps on the breaks, person behind them goes straight into the back. What is there you dont understand?

...there's a term for this, also from Holland: Concertina driving........

Max Power1 wrote: »

Are the RSA responsible for running gender biased ads funded by the taxpayer?

...oh yes they are........

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

its in the RSA interest to lower roads deaths, to reduce the cost involved to all agencies.

.....you've just proved it's all about the money. It's not safety per se they're interested in....

Gophur wrote: »

What part of Road Safety Authority do you have trouble with?

The suggestion that the Road Safety Authority is not interested in saving lives is laughable. While the way they achieve their objectives may be questionable, their objective is clear and unambiguous.

The RSA has one objective, to make our roads safer. It has no role, or interest, in generating revenue. Its funding comes from the Govt. how they raise it is another thing. Speed cameras and speeding initiatives are not designed to be revenue generating schemes, despite what 99% of objectors state. They may be in the wrong locations, but their presence is designed to influence drivers' thinking and behaviour. They are a blunt tool and, probably, highly inefficient.

Anyone, opposed to such cameras, care to suggest a different approach for preventing inappropriate speeding?

Tosh. It's primary function is to justify it's own existence. And coralling in money via camera's, or private camera operator's (who are in it to make a profit, remember...) is key to that. If they themselves refuse to acknowledge what their owns statistics tell them (e.g. that for 2009, speed was only a causal factor in 9% of accidents........), then they are continuing to flog a long-dead horse, and get them a bad rep in the process. Self inflicted, I might add.....

Putting either clever, or even condescending ads on TV in the wee small hours, when the target audience is at the night club/pub/cruise proves they are completely out of touch.

And your last sentence is a change of tack: 'inappropriate speeding' is not breaking the speed limit. Yet limit-breaking is all cameras/lasers/radar can detect. To extol their prolificacy is not only flying in the face of their own 'knowledge', it's also treating those of us who know, as idiots. And you'll get no respect from any audience you deem to be idiots.......you want a better solution?: treat us as adults, and informed ones, for a start. Make 'Drivers Ed' mandatory in schools - now - (and I guarantee you it'll be the most popular class in school as well, btw.........). Make Rosemary Smith boss instead of Gaybo. Make 'appropriate' speed limits mandatory - e.g. ignorant 50kph limits on dual carriageways abolished. And put more officer's and GTC cars on the road, policing. Camera's don't detect stupdity, drink, dangerous, or just plain bad, driving.

And all of the above will not only improve matters on the road, but will cost less than the technological dead-end they insist on flogging. But maybe spending less doesn't fit with the Corporate 'Effort' image........