Irony- Road deaths imcrease since Safety Cameras introduced.

mb1725

Anyone else think it really ironic that the road death figures so far are so high after all the hype about how safety cameras would save lives? I know it's not as simplistic as that but if the situation was reversed we'd be reading it on press releases every day.

Wheelnut

Like you said " it's not as simplistic as that" but they're not Safety Cameras, they are Revenue Cameras.

Guy:Incognito

Have they increased on the roads the cameras are on?

Tragedy

They were very quick to claim that the cameras being introduced led to a reduction in road deaths in December.

It wasn't the snow forcing everyone to drive like a granny (or not drive at all.)

No sir, it was the new speed cameras.

Plug

Same deal in Britain, anywhere they are camera's they are more deaths.

FreeCheese4All

Plug wrote: »

Same deal in Britain, anywhere they are camera's they are more deaths.

Source?

Bosco boy

Maybe if they hadn't the safety cameras the deaths would be even higher, figures have gone so low in the last few years it was always going to reach a certain level and will rise again with dwlingling Garda resources. Unless the camera van operators are parking the vans out on the road on blind bends I doubt they can be blamed for killing people. Maybe if the op knows of a particular case he could tell us!

Delirium

Can't find the source document published by the British department referred to in the article.

Road deaths dropped 14 per cent in three months while speed cameras were being axed or switched off.
Fatalities over a year fell 21 per cent to a record low, Department for Transport figures show.
But more than half of Britain’s 6,000 speed cameras are now switched off at any one time as councils try to save money.

Road safety experts say this shows that more than two decades of obsession with the devices has been misplaced.

Even the former police chief turned road safety expert who installed Britain’s first speed camera nearly 20 years ago said the figures showed there had been an ‘over-emphasis’ on cameras.

There were 510 road deaths between July and September 2010, compared with 596 in the same period in 2009 – a fall of 14 per cent.

The number killed or seriously injured fell by 5 per cent, from 7,115 to 6,740. But traffic volume fell by only 1.3 per cent.

During the last year to September, fatalities fell below 2,000 for the first time since records began. There were 1,900, compared with 2,402 in the year to September 2009.

Total road casualties are down 3 per cent while the number killed or seriously injured is down 8 per cent over the same time.

The figures were seized on by road safety campaigners who believe that the boom in cameras over the past decade has had little to do with life-saving and more to do with fund-raising.
Speed cameras are being removed or turned off because of funding changes and spending cuts, the Daily Mail revealed last week. More than half – 44.7 per cent – are now switched off.

Claire Armstrong, of the anti-camera group Safespeed, said: ‘When we have a recession we expect the fatalities to fall because people travel less and are therefore exposed to less danger. Any benefit is nothing to do with cameras.’

AA president Edmund King said: ‘We need more traffic police who can stop a drunk or drugged driver, a dangerous or reckless driver, and someone tailgating.


DailyMail.co.uk

-Chris-

Wheelnut wrote: »

Like you said " it's not as simplistic as that" but they're not Safety Cameras, they are Revenue Cameras.

Can we not start this please?

Forest Master

It would only be "irony" if the safety cameras caused the increase. Look up the definition of irony next time.

Tragedy

Bosco boy wrote: »

Maybe if they hadn't the safety cameras the deaths would be even higher, figures have gone so low in the last few years it was always going to reach a certain level and will rise again with dwlingling Garda resources. Unless the camera van operators are parking the vans out on the road on blind bends I doubt they can be blamed for killing people. Maybe if the op knows of a particular case he could tell us!

You're making a logical jump there.

The OP didn't say that Safety Cameras had increased road deaths, he said it was ironic that road deaths had increased since a measure mooted to decrease them had been introduced.

charlie1966

Have a read of this Australian research. Effectively saying that some speed limits should be increased and that with the correct training faster drivers are less likely to have an accident.

Expect this research to be buried as the Idiots in the like of the RSA wouldn't understand it. I don't like the RSA as I think they are incompetent. And yes I would willingly take over the running of the RSA and reduce driving related deaths without the constant distractions drivers have to endure that take our attention away from concentrating on the job in hand, ie the roads.
My problem with "safety cameras" again is that they are a distraction. We will all spend more time watching our speedometers now than looking at the road and paying attention to driving at a correct speed for the conditions.
I could rant for ages on this subject as I have a passionate interest in it

Take time to read the entire report. It makes for an interesting perspective at least and you might just learn something, which can't be a bad thing.

squod

We could be investing in advanced driving courses, now were in a recession people have the time to do them but not the money. Revenue from the safety camera scam system could easily part fund these courses.

Leonard Hofstadter

Any statistician worth their salt will tell you that the time period is too short to really say that the increase in deaths can be attributed to speed cameras.

Any statistician worth their salt will also tell you that you need to compare the period since the cameras were introduced directly with the same period last year, and in previous years. Like comparing the three months since the speed cameras were introduced with the immediate three months before the cameras were introduced is not a direct comparison, because it is well known that the time of year has a direct impact on the number of deaths on our roads. July has been shown to be the most dangerous time of the year on our roads for example.

While the anti speed camera element of me wants to say that this shows that speed cameras are either totally ineffective (and there is plenty of statistical evidence to back this up) or only marginally reduce deaths on the roads, the statistician side of me knows that the time period is not long enough to statistically show that the speed cameras make a difference in Ireland.

My guess is that even if a statistical model showed that fatalities increased since the introduction of cameras, you would get a huge amount of unexplained variation in the model which basically means that you can only say that based on the data provided cameras increase deaths but really we need a lot more data to be sure about this.

The other thing I would say is that even if the deaths had fallen, that couldn't all be directly attributed to speed cameras either, because compared to the same period last year, there is a lot more motorway and motorways have been shown to massively reduce fatalities.

Of course the RSA may decide it wants to ignore the introduction of more motorways and set up a model to tell it that it's all down to cameras - that's possible as well, and the RSA are well known for their ability to massage statistics to say what they want:rolleyes:.

The UK shows that speed cameras don't necessarily reduce deaths - since they removed most of them in the UK lately the deaths have gone down, not up as most people feared they would, but my guess is that even after nine months, there isn't enough evidence to prove this, but so far it's encouraging to hear.

charlie1966

I like your way thinking Squod. Better than the same old rubbish that usually comes from those in charge. It has been knows for a long time that you get better results from rewarding good behavior than penalizing people. This works for any training. It's something I think VW suggested recently in Germany for road users. (Must try to look it up.)

Anan1

charlie1966 wrote: »

Have a read of this Australian research. Effectively saying that some speed limits should be increased and that with the correct training faster drivers are less likely to have an accident.

Expect this research to be buried as the Idiots in the like of the RSA wouldn't understand it. I don't like the RSA as I think they are incompetent. And yes I would willingly take over the running of the RSA and reduce driving related deaths without the constant distractions drivers have to endure that take our attention away from concentrating on the job in hand, ie the roads.
My problem with "safety cameras" again is that they are a distraction. We will all spend more time watching our speedometers now than looking at the road and paying attention to driving at a correct speed for the conditions.
I could rant for ages on this subject as I have a passionate interest in it

Take time to read the entire report. It makes for an interesting perspective at least and you might just learn something, which can't be a bad thing.

For someone with a passionate interest, I have to say you're rather easily duped. That the 'report' is a joke is obvious from the opening pages; had you got as far as the acknowledgements you'd have been left in no doubt.;)

Reg'stoy

mb1725 wrote: »

Anyone else think it really ironic that the road death figures so far are so high after all the hype about how safety cameras would save lives?

First crash of the year involved a 22 year old male and a 17 year old female, maybe the RSA should start a campaign targeting young males along the line of 'he drives, she dies'.

That's my broad sweeping statement based only on the statistics I wanted to base it on.

As I have posted before anyone stupid enough to get caught by these cameras when their locations are freely available are more than likely habitual speeders. There will always be peaks and troughs when it comes to statistics, as I'm sure others would have pointed out had the numbers fallen (I have yet to see proof of their rise or fall) and the RSA claimed them to be a success.

Unfortunately there will always be road deaths because there will always be accidents (by there very definition) but we can change the culture of excessive speed in dangerous conditions among other things. This can be done by both education and financially for the individual caught, by deterrent.

The revenue argument is as always a lazy one and usually used by someone who when asked why? normally reply "that's the why!" or "because I said so".

Reg'stoy

charlie1966 wrote: »

Have a read of this Australian research. Effectively saying that some speed limits should be increased and that with the correct training faster drivers are less likely to have an accident.

Expect this research to be buried as the Idiots in the like of the RSA wouldn't understand it. I don't like the RSA as I think they are incompetent.

jimmycrackcorm

The OP is being a bit premature in his assertion seeing as not all the safety cameras have been actually deployed as they were due to be staggered for release up until March.

I haven't seen a single one - perhaps they don't exist at all?

Mike 1972

Bosco boy wrote: »

Maybe if they hadn't the safety cameras the deaths would be even higher,

The RSA/Scamera contractors cant loose

Road Deaths Up = "Omigawd we need more cameras more cameras quick !"

Road deaths down = "Arent we doing a great job but you know we could do an even better job if we had more cameras."

Someone on another thread recently made the point that (underrecorded as it is) the suicide rate in Ireland is double the RTA death rate but as the government cant readily derive revenue from stopping people offing themselves.

biko

So what is the increase? And how does it look compared to other years for the same period?

Atomic Pineapple

Whether they have had a positive or negative affect on the number of road deaths has anyone else noticed that they have changed many drivers behavior for the worse?

Ever since the new speed cameras have been introduced I have noticed driver behavior to have degraded even further.

Mainly you see people slamming on the brakes if they see any kind of van parked on the side of the road, even if they're not anywhere near the speed limit let alone breaking it.

Along with people doing very very slow overtaking maneuvers for fear of going over the limit rather than safely overtaking as quick as possible.

Then you have the gombeens in the overtaking lanes on motorways doing 100km/h trying to pass someone doing 99 km/h and taking an age instead of giving a quick press of the pedal to get past and let traffic move on freely because of fear of getting caught breaking the limit.

I now also see much more people travel at well below a limit even if the road is more than capable of holding traffic at or even above that limit. Leading to people having to overtake a slow moving car rather than all traffic freely moving at an acceptable speed.

This is all because the speed cameras capture a single moment in a drivers journey and if they just so happen to be breaking a limit at that time (Not speeding, breaking a limit) they get punished no matter what kind of a driver they are.

popsmar

www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

These are old but people have accidents everywhere look at the map for more info. I was looking once at these to see what was the safest time of the day to drive. For a hole year there is 2, 1 hour slots with no death's or majour accidents the next week someone died at one of those hours.

Stats can tell you what ever you want them to tell. You can state or interpretive them in what ever way makes your argument sound the best. (Once they are facts and not made up. )

keithclancy

Static Speed Cameras Suck.

Average speed cameras are much better as people are watching their speed or a whole section of road and not jamming on the brakes for the one flashy bit.

Viper_JB

keithclancy wrote: »

Static Speed Cameras Suck.

Average speed cameras are much better as people are watching their speed or a whole section of road and not jamming on the brakes for the one flashy bit.

I really don't see it working that way over here for them...I can just see people crawling along for a long strech of road while staring at the speedo the entire time and not paying any attentsion to the actual road.

Atomic Pineapple

Viper_JB wrote: »

I really don't see it working that way over here for them...I can just see people crawling along for a long strech of road while staring at the speedo the entire time and not paying any attentsion to the actual road.

Which is why spending money on education and re-education makes more sense and then use average speed cameras to catch the actual serial speeders that cant be educated.

Joe 90

draffodx wrote: »

Which is why spending money on education and re-education makes more sense and then use average speed cameras to catch the actual serial speeders that cant be educated.

Spending money is the reverse of raising revenue.

keithclancy

Viper_JB wrote: »

I really don't see it working that way over here for them...I can just see people crawling along for a long strech of road while staring at the speedo the entire time and not paying any attentsion to the actual road.

They work perfectly fine in the UK.

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/specs.htm

Plug

FreeCheese4All wrote: »

Source?

Episode of top gear:pac:

Google it anyway except the top gear part.

jimmycrackcorm

draffodx wrote: »

Mainly you see people slamming on the brakes if they see any kind of van parked on the side of the road, even if they're not anywhere near the speed limit let alone breaking it.

The same behaviour when people spotted a white parked on the roadside also.

Viper_JB

keithclancy wrote: »

They work perfectly fine in the UK.

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/specs.htm

All I can see on that site is that they catch a lot of people....surely if anything that's a failure.

The SPECS system is so efficient and user friendly that Manchester CTO processed 2,500 offences in 6 man-hours

keithclancy

Viper_JB wrote: »

All I can see on that site is that they catch a lot of people....surely if anything that's a failure.

Read it properly:

The SPECS system is so efficient and user friendly that Manchester CTO processed 2,500 offences in 6 man-hours

Not captured 2500 in 6 hours.

I.E. If they processed 2500 offences with the GATSO system it would take much longer, even longer if you include the time taken to ship the thing back to the Netherlands to get it calibrated and shipped back to the UK again. This is a cost thing for the tax payer, i.e. hundreds of manhours are freed up.

Average speed cameras work in my experience anyway, and actually improve the flow of traffic as there is less braking/speeding up.

Viper_JB

keithclancy wrote: »

Read it properly:


Not captured 2500 in 6 hours.

I.E. If they processed 2500 offences with the GATSO system it would take much longer, even longer if you include the time taken to ship the thing back to the Netherlands to get it calibrated and shipped back to the UK again. This is a cost thing for the tax payer, i.e. hundreds of manhours are freed up.

Average speed cameras work in my experience anyway, and actually improve the flow of traffic as there is less braking/speeding up.

Ah fair enough, my bad, I still don't think they would work over here but from the looks of things they're far too efficient to ever be introduced over here.

Either way I don't think the answer is more speed camera's but it's generally the raving idiot who everyone listens to when it comes to road saftey, not someone who you would hold a conversation with or trust your children with, in Ireland they seemed determinded to beat the driver into submission, not to work with the drivers to make the roads a better place for eveyone.

SilverBell

Its humourously written, I like the 5 names on the cover page....:D!
The acknowledgements and the references at the end...well done!!

Anan1 wrote: »

For someone with a passionate interest, I have to say you're rather easily duped. That the 'report' is a joke is obvious from the opening pages; had you got as far as the acknowledgements you'd have been left in no doubt.;)

stealthyspeeder

Viper_JB wrote: »

Either way I don't think the answer is more speed camera's but it's generally the raving idiot who everyone listens to when it comes to road saftey, not someone who you would hold a conversation with or trust your children with, in Ireland they seemed determinded to beat the driver into submission, not to work with the drivers to make the roads a better place for eveyone.

Indeed. Infact, where is the anti speed poster whos username aptly describes how I feel when I read his posts?

Iwannahurl

Greetings. :pac:

The OP's "irony" conclusion this early in 2011 may be as premature as the Asst Garda Commissioner's conclusion in mid-December 2010 that speed/safety cameras were directly responsible for the reduction in road deaths up to that point.

Either way, it is too early to say IMO.

The evidence for a safety dividend from speed cameras is good elsewhere, so assuming the system is properly implemented in this country there is no reason to believe that a similar improvement won't happen here. I sincerely hope that in time they will prove their worth.

Iwannahurl

charlie1966 wrote: »

Have a read of this Australian research. Effectively saying that some speed limits should be increased and that with the correct training faster drivers are less likely to have an accident.

Expect this research to be buried as the Idiots in the like of the RSA wouldn't understand it. I don't like the RSA as I think they are incompetent. And yes I would willingly take over the running of the RSA and reduce driving related deaths without the constant distractions drivers have to endure that take our attention away from concentrating on the job in hand, ie the roads.
My problem with "safety cameras" again is that they are a distraction. We will all spend more time watching our speedometers now than looking at the road and paying attention to driving at a correct speed for the conditions.
I could rant for ages on this subject as I have a passionate interest in it

Take time to read the entire report. It makes for an interesting perspective at least and you might just learn something, which can't be a bad thing.

Anan1 wrote: »

For someone with a passionate interest, I have to say you're rather easily duped. That the 'report' is a joke is obvious from the opening pages; had you got as far as the acknowledgements you'd have been left in no doubt.;)

Reg'stoy wrote: »

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0903/double-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1238022040.jpg

SilverBell wrote: »

Its humourously written, I like the 5 names on the cover page....:D!
The acknowledgements and the references at the end...well done!!

Well spotted folks -- you're on the ball! My first reaction was puzzlement at the basic premise, since it completely flies in the face of established research. Then I looked closer. It reminded me of some spoof social science research published several years ago.

I wonder what the the authors' motivation is? They could have waited for April 1. Is it just a mischievous interwebz experiment, or are they attempting some sort of viral marketing to draw attention to themselves?

Will be interesting to see whether it gets legs.

alias no.9

I remember reading somewhere that in Australia, they have speed traps set up whereby when speeders are detected on a particular road, the traffic light sequence on that road is altered to give a longer time on red. It may piss everybody off initially, but since

• the compliance of most drivers will effectively punish the offenders (i.e. once the car in front obeys the red light, the car behind is detained)
• the deterrent is close to real time, reinforcing the link in the offenders mind between action and consequence (rather than getting a fine in the post and wondering when the **** that happened)

I think it has the potential to actually change driving behaviour.

charlie1966

Hands up! I Fcuked up. I hang my head in shame. No excuse would justify my post, so I won't give one.
Iwannahurl, I would say this will travel far. There are loads of idiots like me on the net. :rolleyes:

Reg'stoy

charlie1966 wrote: »

Hands up! I Fcuked up. I hang my head in shame. No excuse would justify my post, so I won't give one.
Iwannahurl, I would say this will travel far. There are loads of idiots like me on the net. :rolleyes:

Fair play

Anan1

charlie1966 wrote: »

Hands up! I Fcuked up. I hang my head in shame. No excuse would justify my post, so I won't give one.
Iwannahurl, I would say this will travel far. There are loads of idiots like me on the net. :rolleyes:

You're making me feel bad now.:D

Iwannahurl

alias no.9 wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere that in Australia, they have speed traps set up whereby when speeders are detected on a particular road, the traffic light sequence on that road is altered to give a longer time on red. It may piss everybody off initially, but since

• the compliance of most drivers will effectively punish the offenders (i.e. once the car in front obeys the red light, the car behind is detained)
• the deterrent is close to real time, reinforcing the link in the offenders mind between action and consequence (rather than getting a fine in the post and wondering when the **** that happened)

I think it has the potential to actually change driving behaviour.

Not necessarily in Ireland, where red lights don't change a lot of drivers' behaviour (or at least not in the way intended).



Yup, story starting to get picked up (though I have no idea how to rate its 'virulence'). That's what the authors wanted I would guess.

I really like the first link: "Don't believe me? Here's the report: HRAR_REPORT243.pdf. There is a god after all! Now go ahead and flame me, you people endangering, environmentalist hippy cyclist anti-speed lycra fetishist slow drivers!"

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/43503-more-speeding-means-safer-roads/
http://bmwmotorcycleclubcape.co.za/faster-gt-more-adrenaline-gt-greater-alertness-and-better-threat-avoidance
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/australia?before=1297170007
http://desertjeeper49.newsvine.com/_news/2011/02/08/6011021-more-speeding-means-safer-highways
http://autos.sympatico.ca/auto-news/7871/driving-fast-makes-you-a-better-driver-study
http://forum.darwincentral.org/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=42643&start=0
http://www.buzzfeed.com/googlereader/more-speeding-means-safer-highways-rules-of-the-r
http://tweetmeme.com/story/3984639831/more-speeding-means-safer-highways-rules-of-the-road-app-ville-tweeted

Conor_M1990

Im yet to see one and I havent changed my driving habits I believe Im a good driver I speed a good bit nothing stupid but if theres a 80 kph limit and the its a good open road and the conditions allow Id do 100 kph have been driving 4 years still have a clean license.

According to the RSA id be a danger to myself and Id drive fast trying to impress girls while the little old lady doing 60 kph in the overtaking lane on a motorway would be a model citizen.

If there is an increase in road deaths its because the roads are in bits there really bad even by Irish standards

charlie1966

Anan1 wrote: »

You're making me feel bad now.:D

You don't really!

Conor_M1990 wrote: »

Im yet to see one and I havent changed my driving habits I believe Im a good driver I speed a good bit nothing stupid but if theres a 80 kph limit and the its a good open road and the conditions allow Id do 100 kph have been driving 4 years still have a clean license.

If there is an increase in road deaths its because the roads are in bits there really bad even by Irish standards

I hadn't seen one for ages but now my area is swamped with them, minor and main roads. We all think we are good drivers (myself included) until we are involved in an accident, and even then it's someone elses fault.
As for the condition of the roads and how they relate to accidents, as drivers we are meant to take that into consideration. Expect the unexpected and all that. To help you all along we all know that the roads are crap and we should drive accordingly.

The simplest way to get rid of these camera vans is if no one breaks the speed limit(That idea is up there with the Lough Ness monster and Bob Geldof for sainthood). Then there is no need for them. Personally I looked at all the options for detecting them, radar detection and the smart phone apps but in the end I thought, just slow down. I'm not any holier than thou do gooder, I do break the speed limit when conditions allow, I enjoy speed but I couldn't live with myself if I killed or seriously injured someone.

keithclancy

I think the amount you drive per year influences the way you drive.

i.e. if you drive more you become worse than if you drive less.

I know I'll go faster for lots of reasons but the main one is traffic patterns, i.e. if I get to a certain place late then i'm stuck in a jam, whereas 10 minutes earlier and its clear.

Made it to work in 1hr 3 minutes this morning and normally it take 1hr 15minutes .. and thats 126km, not one static speed camera on the way

Bizarrely I've only ever gotten a ticket when going to the shops, or to visit a mate

When I do get a ticket it does change my behaviour for a while, but I don't think it changes my behaviour longterm, i'll still overtake someone as quickly as possible than think about if I am breaking the speed limit.

Iwannahurl

keithclancy wrote: »

I think the amount you drive per year influences the way you drive.

i.e. if you drive more you become worse than if you drive less.

I know I'll go faster for lots of reasons but the main one is traffic patterns, i.e. if I get to a certain place late then i'm stuck in a jam, whereas 10 minutes earlier and its clear.

Made it to work in 1hr 3 minutes this morning and normally it take 1hr 15minutes .. and thats 126km, not one static speed camera on the way

Bizarrely I've only ever gotten a ticket when going to the shops, or to visit a mate

When I do get a ticket it does change my behaviour for a while, but I don't think it changes my behaviour longterm, i'll still overtake someone as quickly as possible than think about if I am breaking the speed limit.

I guess that's why a cumulative penalty points system was invented.

Now that I think of it, nobody can claim penalty points constitute a stealth tax, unless of course the Revenue Dept. can redeem them for the sake of a few extra bob into the "state coffers".

keithclancy

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I guess that's why a cumulative penalty points system was invented.

Now that I think of it, nobody can claim penalty points constitute a stealth tax, unless of course the Revenue Dept. can redeem them for the sake of a few extra bob into the "state coffers".

If you drive alot per year here its a given you take into account a monthly charge for fines. Differing road signs, lack of parking, variable speed limits, varying rules per region.

The rule in the Netherlands is you keep with the pace of traffic, if everyone is going slower than you then theres probably a Gatso or Trajectcontrole around the place The Dutch have really heavy fines for a range of offences.

Germany is really strict, but they have a sliding scale for fines, i.e. a certain % over and it increases. They also have penalty points but at least there if you have to spend 3 months off the road then you can get the train to work.

In Ireland you are proper fecked.

Iwannahurl

keithclancy wrote: »

If you drive alot per year here its a given you take into account a monthly charge for fines. Differing road signs, lack of parking, variable speed limits, varying rules per region.

The rule in the Netherlands is you keep with the pace of traffic, if everyone is going slower than you then theres probably a Gatso or Trajectcontrole around the place The Dutch have really heavy fines for a range of offences.

Germany is really strict, but they have a sliding scale for fines, i.e. a certain % over and it increases. They also have penalty points but at least there if you have to spend 3 months off the road then you can get the train to work.

In Ireland you are proper fecked.

Didn't know you were 'out foreign'.

We are indeed proper fecked, in more ways than one. :rolleyes:

everyday taxi

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The RSA/Scamera contractors cant loose

Road Deaths Up = "Omigawd we need more cameras more cameras quick !"

Road deaths down = "Arent we doing a great job but you know we could do an even better job if we had more cameras."

Someone on another thread recently made the point that (underrecorded as it is) the suicide rate in Ireland is double the RTA death rate but as the government cant readily derive revenue from stopping people offing themselves.

That would of been me.
These camera's are revenue collecting, end of. They waffle on about speed and dangerous stretches of road where people died etc. Here's the solution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Put up fixed camera's in all known accident blackspots. Objective achieved. This wont happen as it wont bring in the dollars. Scum. No, what they want is for you to "actually speed", in a perverse kind of cat and mouse game (we might be here today, we might not). How pathetic is that?

Wolverine_1999

everyday taxi wrote: »

That would of been me.
These camera's are revenue collecting, end of. They waffle on about speed and dangerous stretches of road where people died etc. Here's the solution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Put up fixed camera's in all known accident blackspots. Objective achieved. This wont happen as it wont bring in the dollars. Scum. No, what they want is for you to "actually speed", in a perverse kind of cat and mouse game (we might be here today, we might not). How pathetic is that?

Exactly. Plus the fact that people have places to go, and mostly there are no motorway links so people like to get there fast and within time.

+10-20kmph above the speed limit really has no affect in most places. Obviously common sense has to prevail also (towns etc.).

Reg'stoy

everyday taxi wrote: »

That would of been me.
These camera's are revenue collecting, end of. They waffle on about speed and dangerous stretches of road where people died etc. Here's the solution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Put up fixed camera's in all known accident blackspots. Objective achieved. This wont happen as it wont bring in the dollars. Scum. No, what they want is for you to "actually speed", in a perverse kind of cat and mouse game (we might be here today, we might not). How pathetic is that?

You seem to be in the minority

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0421/roadsafety.html