Safety Cameras - what are they up to?

Dannyboy83

I was just reading this:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/uncle-finds-nephew-dead-on-road-after-hitandrun-2806467.html

More people being killed on our local roads.
It seems the amount of people killed on local roads massively outweighs people killed on dual carraigeways and motorways.

I could nearly have been one of those people on Saturday.
I drove down to Crosshaven and there were women doing 80/90kmph around the most deadly bends, on roads which are almost single lane.
Not a speed camera in sight.

Then later, driving out to Midleton, a large section of road which was 120kmph a few months ago, is now 60kmph.
And loads of new speed cameras signs all over.
This road is a big, wide dual carraigeway. Despite being in poor condition, it's still probably one of the safest roads in Cork.

Why do we seem to be putting speed cameras on our safest roads, and leaving our riskiest roads unchecked?

puppetmaster

Not enough Revenue to be gained from putting camera's on rural roads.
There are some camera's on them to be fair. but usually exactly they they are in 60kph zones just after it drops from 80 or 100. the place mostly to catch people.

Rather than two miles further out where ppl are probably doin 140kph :mad:

Zulu

I'd imagine it's because those windy narrow roads won't safely fit a speed camera van, without putting more people at greater risk.

If it's almost "single lane" where are you going to park the van?

28064212

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It seems the amount of people killed on local roads massively outweighs people killed on dual carraigeways and motorways.

Do you have a source for that? It's a regular claim in these arguments, but not one I've seen any stats on

Dannyboy83

28064212 wrote: »

Do you have a source for that? It's a regular claim in these arguments, but not one I've seen any stats on

This is an interactive map from the RSA:
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

If you look at the Cork to Midleton Road here, there is an extremely low volume of all type of collisions, especially when you consider the throughput, from 2008 onward, after the road underwent it's first real upgrades.
But it has been inundated speed camera signs recently.

Then compare West Cork in general, and the areas around Dunmanway in particular.
Much lower throughput, yet still far more fatal and minor accidents.

Dannyboy83

Zulu wrote: »

I'd imagine it's because those windy narrow roads won't safely fit a speed camera van, without putting more people at greater risk.

If it's almost "single lane" where are you going to park the van?

But why would they use a van?
They don't use vans on rural roads in the UK/France, they have the yellow gatso boxes:
http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/gatso.htm

Zulu

Everything cost money. Are there funds available for extra cameras & the maintaince of same? I doubt it.

Dannyboy83

Zulu wrote: »

Everything cost money. Are there funds available for extra cameras & the maintaince of same? I doubt it.

Last year a five-year contract worth €65 million was signed with GoSafe to provide 45 mobile cameras.

€65,000,000 for 45 speed cameras for 5 years =
1.44 million for each camera =
€288,889 per camera per year

You could have 14 fixed gatso cameras, for the same price as 1 of those mobile speed camera. (but I guess that wouldn't make Xavier McCauliffe half as rich)

Scrap 15 of those 30 mobile speed cameras and you could have an extra 210 speed cameras on rural roads.

Zulu

If there's so much money in it, why don't you bring your proposal to a TD or the RSA? Not only could you create some jobs, and save lives - clearly you could make a packet also.

Seems like a no brainer.

Cookie_Monster

fixed cameras don't work. you know where they are and slow for that point only, speeding back up again after.

at least mobile cameras can potentially be anywhere, increasing the risk of getting caught and thus maybe changing behaviour and attitude

That said €65m would have been much better spent on road repair or alterations to make them safer or education.

Dannyboy83

Zulu wrote: »

If there's so much money in it, why don't you bring your proposal to a TD or the RSA? Not only could you create some jobs, and save lives - clearly you could make a packet also.

Seems like a no brainer.

Because I want to know why we are concentrating all on resources on our dual carraigeways and motorways (supposedly the safest in the EU) - While ignoring our local roads (supposedly among the most deadly in the EU)?

thebman

Average speed cameras that double as spot checks could fix the problem.

Have them on entry and exit of towns most dangerous routes. If a person leaves a town and gets to another faster than is possible doing the speed limit, fine them.

However, the problem of course would be routes on rural roads and boy racers will just park up and have a chat to each other for half an hour before flying off to the next area.

No real good way of policing rural roads without police :P

Which of course costs too much for too little return so we let those people die and pretend its all about road safety while policing completely safe areas like they were death zones.

Zulu

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Because I want to know why we are concentrating all on resources on our dual carraigeways and motorways (supposedly the safest in the EU) - While ignoring our local roads (supposedly among the most deadly in the EU)?

Cookie monster & I have addressed that.

Cookie Monster wrote:

fixed cameras don't work. you know where they are and slow for that point only, speeding back up again after.

at least mobile cameras can potentially be anywhere, increasing the risk of getting caught and thus maybe changing behaviour and attitude

Zulu wrote:

because those windy narrow roads won't safely fit a speed camera van, without putting more people at greater risk.

If it's almost "single lane" where are you going to park the van?

AlekSmart

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Last year a five-year contract worth €65 million was signed with GoSafe to provide 45 mobile cameras.

€65,000,000 for 45 speed cameras for 5 years =
1.44 million for each camera =
€288,889 per camera per year

You could have 14 fixed gatso cameras, for the same price as 1 of those mobile speed camera. (but I guess that wouldn't make Xavier McCauliffe half as rich)

.

Well done DannyBoy83,quite a spectacularly direct-hit on the reality of the situation !

The most important thing to do with any Irish Government approved project is to strip-out the PR puffery and go trawling amongst the betting slips.....As Propellerhead might say.....Go Safe-My Arse !

Zombrex

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Why do we seem to be putting speed cameras on our safest roads, and leaving our riskiest roads unchecked?

Because speeders speed everywhere.

The logic that we should put cameras on small, dangerous roads is flawed. It does nothing to catch most speeders.

Speed cameras should be on roads with high volumes of traffic. Why? To catch the most speeders. A speed camera on a main road that catches 10 speeders an hour is far more useful than one on a small rural road that catches 1 a day, even if the main road is far safer.

People with penalty points on their license are less likely to speed, that applies every where. If you limit the speed cameras to small rural roads you never catch most of these people until they wrap their car around a tree, at which point it is too late.

People seem to fundamentally miss the point of speed cameras. They are to punish bad driving before the person becomes a significant danger on the roads. It doesn't matter where the bad driving occurs so long as it is caught when it does.

thebman

Wicknight wrote: »

Because speeders speed everywhere.

This is not true really.

They know the speed cameras are on the motorways.

The boy racers in single car accidents are using back roads as race tracks because they know they aren't being policed at all!!

Zombrex

thebman wrote: »

This is not true really.

They know the speed cameras are on the motorways.

The boy racers in single car accidents are using back roads as race tracks because they know they aren't being policed at all!!

And if they were the only people who ever broke the speed limit I would agree that this is where the effort should be put. But they aren't. In reality far more people speed on our roads than just racers. In fact most people who speed speed on urban roads, not rural roads. You aren't going to catch these people with speed cameras on small rural roads that most people never drive down. Not unless you blanket the country with them, and that seems a complete waste of moeny.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

They are to punish bad driving before the person becomes a significant danger on the roads. It doesn't matter where the bad driving occurs so long as it is caught when it does.

Well the problem is that if the rural roads do have much higher rates of collision, then it does matter where the bad driving occurs, and it does happen after they become a significant danger...

Pedro K

Wicknight wrote: »

Because speeders speed everywhere.

The logic that we should put cameras on small, dangerous roads is flawed. It does nothing to catch most speeders.

Speed cameras should be on roads with high volumes of traffic. Why? To catch the most speeders. A speed camera on a main road that catches 10 speeders an hour is far more useful than one on a small rural road that catches 1 a day, even if the main road is far safer.

People with penalty points on their license are less likely to speed, that applies every where. If you limit the speed cameras to small rural roads you never catch most of these people until they wrap their car around a tree, at which point it is too late.

People seem to fundamentally miss the point of speed cameras. They are to punish bad driving before the person becomes a significant danger on the roads. It doesn't matter where the bad driving occurs so long as it is caught when it does.

*Sigh*

Breaking the speed limit isn't necessarily "bad driving".

What's worse in your opinion, somebody doing 140kph on a 3 lane motorway with miles of visibility, or somebody doing 100kph on a single lane local road where you can't see around the corner. It's a no brainer.

Motorways are safe, and they'd be even safer if the RSA put half as much time into teaching lane discipline to Irish drivers as they do into speed cameras.

In fact, driving too slow on motorways could be considered more dangerous than driving a couple of kph over the limit. There is no excuse for putting speed cameras on motorways. It is a revenue raiser, nothing more.

Zulu

The current stock of mobile cameras are positioned according to accident frequency, and assuming there's a safe point to position the camera.

Road deaths are down since GoSafe went on line.

There are people alive today, that would be dead, if the cameras didn't go ahead. So families have a brother, sister, mother, father, son, daughter that they wouldn't have had.

Sure it's not perfect, but it is saving lives.

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote: »

Well the problem is that if the rural roads do have much higher rates of collision, then it does matter where the bad driving occurs, and it does happen after they become a significant danger...

Not from the point of view of deterrence. A speed camera won't stop you wrapping your car around a tree. Saying "He killed himself and the passenger and the on coming car but at least we got a picture of his number plate" is some what pointless. By the time the person has speed around that particular dangerous bend on that particular rural road it is too late. They either were fine, or they killed someone. If they were fine and got a ticket for speeding great, but you are only going to catch a tiny percentage of people that way, and unless you put a speed camera along an entire road it is some what pointless. A really bad accident black spot might have 5 accidents a year and further up the road their might be 2. Putting the speed camera at the accident black spot does nothing for the 2 further up the road.

Again people are missing the fundamental point of speed cameras. They are not to warn people of a dangerous stretch of road. Speeding is dangerous on any stretch of road. They are to get the message home that speeding is illegal and you will be punished unless you learn how to keep your speed down. The knock on effect of this is that people speed less, in general, and accident rates go down. This notion that it is only dangerous to speed at these particular points on these particular rural roads if they have a speed camera there is part of the problem.

Zombrex

Pedro K wrote: »

*Sigh*

Breaking the speed limit isn't necessarily "bad driving".

*Groan*

This sort of nonsense is part of the problem. Everyone thinks that when they speed it is in a perfectly safe fashion, and all the accidents are really cased by boy racers taking the piss.

The reality is the opposite. While a car full of 17 year olds wrapping themselves around a tree makes the headlines the reality is that these are the minority of road accidents.

As I said to bluewolf this notion that speeding is fine except on particular roads at particular dangerous spots where we should put cameras is nonsense. I've worked with the RSA/police road accident data. There certainly are these accident black spots which have a statistically higher number of accidents, but that does not mean accidents do not happen else where. They do, but because they are spread out they do not become black spots. But then that doesn't really matter if you are dead. If there is a road with 15 accidents a year, 5 of which all happened at the same spot, it means very little to you if you are hit a car in one of the other 10 spots along the whole road. The speed camera at the accident black spot does nothing for you then.

The notion that speeding is fine so long as you are not in one of these accident black spots is what causes all these other. Speeders speed everywhere. You combat road accidents by getting them to slow down in general, not just when they themselves think there is a danger, because by definition they are not in a position to correctly determine this.

Pedro K wrote: »

What's worse in your opinion, somebody doing 140kph on a 3 lane motorway with miles of visibility, or somebody doing 100kph on a single lane local road where you can't see around the corner. It's a no brainer.

Which is worse depends on who crashes. You appreciate that people crash on motorways, right? And when they do they tend to kill more people. Crashes on motorways are rarer than rural roads, but they also have much higher fatality rates.

From the point of view of the driver though your example it is the same person in both cases. The person who thinks they can happily speed on a motorway is the same person who thinks they can happily speed on a rural road.

And you are much more likely to catch them breaking the law on the motorway than on a rural road. So it seems like a no-brainer.

Pedro K wrote: »

Motorways are safe, and they'd be even safer if the RSA put half as much time into teaching lane discipline to Irish drivers as they do into speed cameras.

Motorways are not "safe". They are safer. And do you really think a person who thinks they are perfectly safe breaking the speedlimit on a motorway doesn't also think they are perfectly safe breaking the speedlimit on a rural road?

The issue here is drivers thinking their ability extends beyond the law.

That is an issue with the driver, it doesn't matter if you put that driver on a motorway or on a rural road. That driver will speed anywhere because they have convinced themselves that they are the exception to the rule, they do not need to be held back by the rules of the road. The rules are for other people, they are a better driver than other people they don't need to follow them.

Dannyboy83

Wicknight wrote: »

Because speeders speed everywhere.

The logic that we should put cameras on small, dangerous roads is flawed. It does nothing to catch most speeders.

Speed cameras should be on roads with high volumes of traffic. Why? To catch the most speeders. A speed camera on a main road that catches 10 speeders an hour is far more useful than one on a small rural road that catches 1 a day, even if the main road is far safer.

People with penalty points on their license are less likely to speed, that applies every where. If you limit the speed cameras to small rural roads you never catch most of these people until they wrap their car around a tree, at which point it is too late.

People seem to fundamentally miss the point of speed cameras. They are to punish bad driving before the person becomes a significant danger on the roads. It doesn't matter where the bad driving occurs so long as it is caught when it does.

This is completely illogical.
You are saying that speeders speed everywhere.
Therefore you should agree that a deterrent on rural roads is a necessity.
i.e. They will speed on rural roads, even if they wouldn't on the motorway, - because there is no deterrent on the rural roads, correct?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

A really bad accident black spot might have 5 accidents a year and further up the road their might be 2. Putting the speed camera at the accident black spot does nothing for the 2 further up the road.

No but it may result in fewer deaths and that would be preferable to putting them along motorways with fewer accidents and more chance of revenue.

Again people are missing the fundamental point of speed cameras. They are not to warn people of a dangerous stretch of road.

But wick, they said they are putting them on the most dangerous spots:

Safety cameras will be on the roads all across Ireland where fatal collisions are happening as a result of inappropriate speed.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=5590
Now I can't find the campaign at the moment to get more direct quotes (e.g. that annoying ad on tv about them), but the implication is that these cameras are being put there for our safety in dangerous areas. You can understand the confusion.
Earlier it has been shown there are far more numerous dangerous sections of road where higher rates of accidents occur, and yet there are few to no speed cameras in these spots.

Speeding is dangerous on any stretch of road. They are to get the message home that speeding is illegal and you will be punished unless you learn how to keep your speed down.

Not when the usual line trotted out is that they're put in accident black spot places.

This notion that it is only dangerous to speed at these particular points on these particular rural roads if they have a speed camera there is part of the problem.

No, you have it in reverse here: it is not dangerous to speed only if there is a camera there; we are saying it is dangerous to speed in these areas and therefore there should be camera there.

Zombrex

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

This is completely illogical.
You are saying that speeders speed everywhere.
Therefore you should agree that a deterrent on rural roads is a necessity.

Only if we have an infinite number of speed cameras and resources. We don't. So where will you get the maximum effect per speed camera? On a main road that will catch man more times the number of speeders than a speed camera on a small rural road.

Do you actually disagree with this? I can't help feel that the objections to speed cameras on these roads are just people who want to be able to speed on "safe" motorways.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

i.e. They will speed on rural roads, even if they wouldn't on the motorway, - because there is no deterrent on the rural roads, correct?

People speed due to a miss placed faith in their own abilities and lack of habit of maintaining their speed at the legal level. You can deter people from such behavior anywhere. My objection to focusing speed cameras solely on rural roads is that you greatly decrease the number of people you will catch.

Ultimately it is a numbers game. The more people you catch speeding the more people who will learn to maintain their speed legally. The ultimate goal should be habit changing in dangerous drivers, since (as I've said) it is impossible to stick a speed camera up everywhere someone could possibly crash.

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote: »

No but it may result in fewer deaths and that would be preferable to putting them along motorways with fewer accidents and more chance of revenue.

Why exactly?

If you catch 100 speeders on a motorway in a day vs 1 on a rural road you have the potential to cause 100 dangerous drivers to reconsider their driving as opposed to 1 dangerous driver on the rural road.

How does the latter result in fewer accidents?

bluewolf wrote: »

But wick, they said they are putting them on the most dangerous spots:

I know. This is one of the biggest shames in recent years, the police and local authorities are buying into public pressure to alter how speed cameras were original designed to achieve.

So you get this nonsense about large signs being placed running up to speed cameras, and this idea that we only need speed cameras in accident black spots.

The Guardi and the RSA know this is nonsense, they are doing it for political reasons because of the general annoyance of speed cameras people feel.

Ultimately I feel speed cameras will be scrapped. The idea that they are picking on you (for essentially breaking the law) is far to prevalent in society, the original purpose (to get people to follow the bloody law) has been lost. Now the police seem to just spend their time engaging in spin to try and appease people.

It is a crying shame.

bluewolf wrote: »

Not when the usual line trotted out is that they're put in accident black spot places.

Correct. That is the wrong, and very inaccurate, message to be producing. The police are unfortunately bowing to public pressure.

The simple fact of the matter is that people who regularly speed do not like being caught by speed cameras, and this annoyance is putting pressure on police and local authorities to refocus the use of speed cameras from reducing speeding to this some what stupid idea that they are deterrents for particular accident black spots.

Of course we already had these, big signs saying Slow Down Accident Black Spot.

The issue is not these areas, the issue is all the other parts of the roads. There might be 5 accidents at this spot with the sign and then 10 along the rest of the road.

All we are doing is producing a culture that says speed anywhere so long as it isn't an accident black spot. And this is unfortunately exactly the time of culture some people want their to be.

bluewolf wrote: »

No, you have it in reverse here: it is not dangerous to speed only if there is a camera there; we are saying it is dangerous to speed in these areas and therefore there should be camera there.

You want to have reached the person long before they even get to the accident black spot, so they are already in the habit of watching their speed and maintaining the legal level.

Giving them a ticket after they have wrapped their car around a tree at an accident black spot is some what pointless.

Dannyboy83

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if we have an infinite number of speed cameras and resources. We don't.

We don't need an infinite number.
We simply need to redeploy the resources we do have.

So where will you get the maximum effect per speed camera? On a main road that will catch man more times the number of speeders than a speed camera on a small rural road.

Sorry, but this is illogical.
If you are measuring it in terms of serious/fatal collisions, then the greatest effect is to be achieved by placing the deterrent on rural roads, where most serious/fatal accidents occur.

The argument you proposed would be fine, if it impacted driver behaviour on rural roads - it doesn't (see my opening post).

People watch their speed on motorways and dual carriageways, then proceed to drive like lunatics on country roads.

Do you actually disagree with this? I can't help feel that the objections to speed cameras on these roads are just people who want to be able to speed on "safe" motorways.

I don't think it's safe to speed on motorways. I never said this.
However, it's much less safe to speed on rural roads!
The RSA back this themselves.

Also, some of the speed limits really need to be reconsidered.
http://www.irishspeedtraps.com/speedlimits.aspx

I think 80kmph should be the max on rural roads

People speed due to a miss placed faith in their own abilities and lack of habit of maintaining their speed at the legal level. You can deter people from such behavior anywhere.

Obviously this is a fallacy - why are people still speeding on our rural roads?

My objection to focusing speed cameras solely on rural roads is that you greatly decrease the number of people you will catch.

But you also greatly decrease the number of fatal collisions.
Which is more important - the amount of people you catch or the amount of lives saved?

Ultimately it is a numbers game. The more people you catch speeding the more people who will learn to maintain their speed legally.

I disagree:
If BillyBoyRacer knows there are speed cameras on motorways, he won't speed.
When he gets back onto a rural road, he will speed, because there is no deterrent.

The ultimate goal should be habit changing in dangerous drivers, since (as I've said) it is impossible to stick a speed camera up everywhere someone could possibly crash.

I agree with this.

What is the most direct and effective way to change habits on rural roads, where most fatal collisions are happening?
Introduce a deterrent.

Fr Tod Umptious

Looking at the map of where the cameras are there seem to be a good shot of them on regional roads (non N or M type).

I am not sure if there is a list that lists location by road number but I am sure one could figure out the % of regional and national/motorway roads that have cameras from such a list.

So I don't agree with you OP when you say that the cameras are going on the safest roads

Zulu

I think the OP would have them on bóithrín's.

thebman

There is no point even discussing this TBH if someone is going to say it doesn't matter where the speed camera is, it will deter speeding everywhere.

Show me evidence to back that up because it sounds like nonsense.

If you want to change driver behavior on rural roads then putting the speed cameras on motorways is not going to change behavior on rural roads especially when it is so obvious that this is your policy that drivers feel safe breaking the speed limits on rural roads because they know they can't be caught.

Your actually making it worse in reality. People will speed on rural roads as it is the only place they can speed without getting caught if they want to speed.

And to answer another question, it isn't because I want to speed on motorways (a pitiful accusation and attempt to paint people with opposite views), it is because I want to not feel like I could die going round any corner when I have no choice but to drive down a bad road to get somewhere.

Zulu

The only place I've seen GoSafe vans was on regional roads.

Care to prove that they're policing motorways primarily?

Zombrex

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

We don't need an infinite number.
We simply need to redeploy the resources we do have.

Exactly. So why deploy a speed camera to a road that might get 1 or 2 speeders a day instead of on a road where you might get 100?

Oh thats right, because that is good speeding. :rolleyes:

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Sorry, but this is illogical.
If you are measuring it in terms of serious/fatal collisions, then the greatest effect is to be achieved by placing the deterrent on rural roads, where most serious/fatal accidents occur.

No it isn't. You will notice that in a fatal accident the driver is dead. You can't deter them from future speeding, they have already killed themselves.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The argument you proposed would be fine, if it impacted driver behaviour on rural roads - it doesn't (see my opening post).

People watch their speed on motorways and dual carriageways, then proceed to drive like lunatics on country roads.

That is incorrect and also illogical. People have a higher sense of safety on motorways. You said it yourself, just because you speed on a motor way doesn't mean you are being "dangerous". This attitude is common in Ireland.

In reality people speed on national roads far more than they speed on rural roads.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't think it's safe to speed on motorways. I never said this.
However, it's much less safe to speed on rural roads!
The RSA back this themselves.

It is much less safe. But you aren't going to catch them on the rural roads.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Obviously this is a fallacy - why are people still speeding on our rural roads?

Why would they not be still speeding on our rural roads?

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

But you also greatly decrease the number of fatal collisions.

And if that were true I would be all for them.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I disagree:
If BillyBoyRacer knows there are speed cameras on motorways, he won't speed.
When he gets back onto a rural road, he will speed, because there is no deterrent.

BillyBoyRacer is probably beyond help. He needs his license revoked.

He though is not the cause of most accidents in Ireland.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What is the most direct and effective way to change habits on rural roads, where most fatal collisions are happening?
Introduce a deterrent.

That only effects a tiny percentage of drivers. How is that effective?

Zombrex

thebman wrote: »

There is no point even discussing this TBH if someone is going to say it doesn't matter where the speed camera is, it will deter speeding everywhere.

Show me evidence to back that up because it sounds like nonsense.

If you want to change driver behavior on rural roads then putting the speed cameras on motorways is not going to change behavior on rural roads especially when it is so obvious that this is your policy that drivers feel safe breaking the speed limits on rural roads because they know they can't be caught.

Your actually making it worse in reality. People will speed on rural roads as it is the only place they can speed without getting caught if they want to speed.

That works on the assumption that people speed for the sake of speeding. They don't. They speed due to force of habit and not bothering to monitor their speed.

Ignore the boy racers for a minute. Most drivers speed simply out of laziness or lack of paying attention. They aren't trill seekers, they aren't racing. It is simply bad driving, they are not trying to kill themselves.

A good parallel is seat belts. Imagine if the campaign for seat belts focused on just making sure people wore seat belts on rural roads, cause that is where fatal accidents happened.

Think how stupid that would be.

You get people in the habit of putting on a seat belt anywhere and they will do it, as a process of habit, anywhere.

thebman

Wicknight wrote: »

That works on the assumption that people speed for the sake of speeding. They don't. They speed due to force of habit and not bothering to monitor their speed.

Ignore the boy racers for a minute. Most drivers speed simply out of laziness or lack of paying attention. They aren't trill seekers, they aren't racing. It is simply bad driving, they are not trying to kill themselves.

A good parallel is seat belts. Imagine if the campaign for seat belts focused on just making sure people wore seat belts on rural roads, cause that is where fatal accidents happened.

Think how stupid that would be.

You get people in the habit of putting on a seat belt anywhere and they will do it, as a process of habit, anywhere.

I can tell you that what I say is accurate for a significant number of young male drivers which is the high risk categoy we should be trying to change the habits of.

I know because I know young people who drive like this. They will no problem, obey speed limits on motorways or on roads that might have people their parents know on them. Then they drive off to some area with few people to drive like lunatics and pretend they are in a WRC computer game.

We can still have speed cameras on main roads, just less often as more resources will be dedicated to the roads where people are actually trying to race and emulate WRC. The majority of people don't speed on the motorways anyway so you don't need as many resources to maintain people obeying the limit. It takes more to change behavior initially than keep it changed.

Zombrex

thebman wrote: »

I can tell you that what I say is accurate for a significant number of young male drivers which is the high risk categoy we should be trying to change the habits of.

Of which I've no doubt, but racers make up a small percentage of people who speed on our roads and a small percentage of road accidents.

They also would simply race where their isn't speed cameras, so the effectiveness of speed cameras to deter them at all is debatable.

Dannyboy83

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly. So why deploy a speed camera to a road that might get 1 or 2 speeders a day instead of on a road where you might get 100?

Oh thats right, because that is good speeding

eh.........no.

This is pretty simple. Try to follow now - ok?

You deploy speed cameras, to the roads where people are speeding, to prevent accidents happening.

I don't know where you get the idea that a higher tally of fines is more important. That's irrational.

No it isn't. You will notice that in a fatal accident the driver is dead. You can't deter them from future speeding, they have already killed themselves.

Is that seriously the best you can come up with?
That's pathetic Wicknight.

The idea is to prevent people speeding in the first place - ex-ante
Applying your logic, that would never be any point in having speed cameras in the first place.:rolleyes:
Seriously, either put forward a coherent argument or don't bother, this is just time wasting.

That is incorrect and also illogical. People have a higher sense of safety on motorways. You said it yourself, just because you speed on a motor way doesn't mean you are being "dangerous". This attitude is common in Ireland.
In reality people speed on national roads far more than they speed on rural roads.

It's neither incorrect, not illogical.
Your points are irrational.
The RSA data shows that more crashes are happening on Rural roads, and a greater proportion of them are fatal crashes.

Besides, the difference between 15kmph excess on a rural road could be far more dangerous than 15kmph on a dual carraigeway, for obvious reasons.

If people are speeding on motorways - they are speeding away from me.
That's their own problem.

If their speeding on rural roads - there is a 50% chance they're speeding toward me. That's my problem.

It is much less safe. But you aren't going to catch them on the rural roads.

Bingo!
Not when you don't have speed cameras on rural roads;)
Now you're starting to get it.

Why would they not be still speeding on our rural roads?

:rolleyes:
The foundation of your entire argument is that catching speeders on motorways, will change their overall behaviour.

Now you are saying, why would they not be speeding on rural roads?

Seriously, this is nonsense. Make up your mind.

And if that were true I would be all for them.

Indeed - therefore you concentrate the 'limited resources', as you put it, where they are most needed.
Deterrents ought to go on risky roads.

BillyBoyRacer is probably beyond help. He needs his license revoked.

Just a minute ago, you said:

The ultimate goal should be habit changing in dangerous drivers

That only effects a tiny percentage of drivers. How is that effective?

Because that tiny percentage of drivers are driving on the riskiest roads where speeding could potentially be most dangerous.

thirtythirty

Mmmm, I dunno that the want to speed, or force of habit is the primary reasons. I'd say it's more due to an element of relative safety and driving to the conditions. Consider this Wicknight;

For the sake of this, Im going to be using arbitrary units where 1 is the safest and 10 is dangerous, beyond that is v dangerous.

If you're travelling at 120km/h on a motorway you might be 6/10 dangerous considering all things like viewable horizon, on-coming traffic, stopping distances, roadside hazards etc. 130km/h is probably about 7/10 dangerous. 90mph or ~145km/h is probably 9 or 10/10 dangerous

If you're travelling at 80km/h on a rural backroad, you're already at 9 or 10/10 dangerous in a lot of cases. At least 80% of the rural or backroads i've driven anyway. Really you shouldn't be doing that speed there at all. In this case, another 10km/h makes a huge difference and could be the difference between leaving the road or not.

But of course the motorway speeder gets caught which seems illogical to me.

I have zero problem with "safety" vans. I would prefer though if a review of road speeds was undertaken - increased motorways, same national roads, and decreased secondary / rural roads.

I would also like to see the fatal motorway crash stats vs rural roads...

InigoMontoya

thebman wrote: »

There is no point even discussing this TBH if someone is going to say it doesn't matter where the speed camera is, it will deter speeding everywhere.

Show me evidence to back that up because it sounds like nonsense.

If you want to change driver behavior on rural roads then putting the speed cameras on motorways is not going to change behavior on rural roads especially when it is so obvious that this is your policy that drivers feel safe breaking the speed limits on rural roads because they know they can't be caught.

Your actually making it worse in reality. People will speed on rural roads as it is the only place they can speed without getting caught if they want to speed.

And to answer another question, it isn't because I want to speed on motorways (a pitiful accusation and attempt to paint people with opposite views), it is because I want to not feel like I could die going round any corner when I have no choice but to drive down a bad road to get somewhere.

I don't think anyone is advocating a policy of having NO speed cameras except on motorways.

In Ireland we have 26 km of road per 1,000 population; roughly twice as much as in Belgium, France or Denmark, and over three times as much as in the Netherlands, Italy or Spain.
(http://www.ireland-information.com/reference/transpor.html - not sure how up to date that is)

And the regional/local roads network is of course far longer than the national roads/motorways:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_Ireland#Roads_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland)

So basically we have a dense network of sub-national roads which is going to be costly to cover using speed cameras/garda checks. It seems valid to use motorway measures to try to influence driver behaviour overall, though this does not imply that we should not also have enough checks on smaller roads that people feel there is a risk of being caught.

Since the OP gave an anecdote about "women driving at speed around bends" (I paraphrase) I am going to point out that in my experience I've seen the new speed camera vans off-motorway more than on.

Dannyboy83

thebman wrote: »

We can still have speed cameras on main roads, just less often as more resources will be dedicated to the roads where people are actually trying to race and emulate WRC. The majority of people don't speed on the motorways anyway so you don't need as many resources to maintain people obeying the limit. It takes more to change behavior initially than keep it changed.

Exactly.

Dannyboy83

InigoMontoya wrote: »

So basically we have a dense network of sub-national roads which is going to be costly to cover using speed cameras/garda checks.

True, we have a dense network of high risk roads.
In Cork, we only have 1 motorway and few dual carraigeways.
Almost all resources are concentrated on the motorway and dual carraigeways, rural roads seem to be completely ignored.

It seems valid to use motorway measures to try to influence driver behaviour overall,

I don't consider it valid - because it's not working.

People are still driving like lunatics on rural roads.

Since the OP gave an anecdote about "women driving at speed around bends" (I paraphrase) I am going to point out that in my experience I've seen the new speed camera vans off-motorway more than on.

I have never seen one on a rural road, anywhere in Cork county. By never, I mean zero times.
The closest I've seen to it is on the road to Bandon, before Innishannon, where there are some subtle speed changes and the road is at it's widest and safest, with an extra lane, on the N71.

Zombrex

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Because that tiny percentage of drivers are driving on the riskiest roads where speeding could potentially be most dangerous.

What are talking about?

The majority of drivers in Ireland will drive on regional roads at some point. There is 11,600 km of regional roads (more of local roads).

If you stick 100 speed cameras on them that is one speed camera every 1,160 km. You are going to observe a tiny percentage of the drivers on regional roads due to the distance between cameras and the low volume on each individual road. Not because there is no one on these roads, but because you are far far far too spread out to actually catch most people. Some drivers could go their entire time never even passing a speed camera. You might as well not even bother.

On the other hand there are 2683.974 km of National Roads. The same number of speed cameras will cover 268km with a much much higher volume of traffic. You are talking hundreds of speeders passing these cameras every day as opposed to the tens on the rural network.

Unless you are suggesting that we plow millions into vastly increasing the number of speed cameras to blanket the regional road network your argument is nonsensical.

Zombrex

spottyelephant wrote: »

Mmmm, I dunno that the want to speed, or force of habit is the primary reasons. I'd say it's more due to an element of relative safety and driving to the conditions. Consider this Wicknight;

For the sake of this, Im going to be using arbitrary units where 1 is the safest and 10 is dangerous, beyond that is v dangerous.

If you're travelling at 120km/h on a motorway you might be 6/10 dangerous considering all things like viewable horizon, on-coming traffic, stopping distances, roadside hazards etc. 130km/h is probably about 7/10 dangerous. 90mph or ~145km/h is probably 9 or 10/10 dangerous

If you're travelling at 80km/h on a rural backroad, you're already at 9 or 10/10 dangerous in a lot of cases. At least 80% of the rural or backroads i've driven anyway. Really you shouldn't be doing that speed there at all. In this case, another 10km/h makes a huge difference and could be the difference between leaving the road or not.

But of course the motorway speeder gets caught which seems illogical to me.

I have zero problem with "safety" vans. I would prefer though if a review of road speeds was undertaken - increased motorways, same national roads, and decreased secondary / rural roads.

I would also like to see the fatal motorway crash stats vs rural roads...

I'm not following what point you are trying to make? I'm not claiming it is safer to speed on rural roads.

InigoMontoya

Well, some people are driving like lunatics no matter where they are. I drove Dublin - Westport - Clifden - Dublin over the course of last weekend and saw people driving like gob****es on all classes of roads. If they pick up enough points they might cop on a bit, regardless of where they get them.

It's going to be difficult to stop people who are determined to speed whenever and wherever they can, without a huge investment in dense networks of cameras all over the place.

Dannyboy83

Wicknight wrote: »

What are talking about?

The majority of drivers in Ireland will drive on regional roads at some point. There is 11,600 km of regional roads (more of local roads).

If you stick 100 speed cameras on them that is one speed camera every 1,160 km. You are going to observe a tiny percentage of the drivers on regional roads due to the distance between cameras and the low volume on each individual road. Not because there is no one on these roads, but because you are far far far too spread out to actually catch most people. Some drivers could go their entire time never even passing a speed camera. You might as well not even bother.

On the other hand there are 2683.974 km of National Roads. The same number of speed cameras will cover 268km with a much much higher volume of traffic. You are talking hundreds of speeders passing these cameras every day as opposed to the tens on the rural network.

Unless you are suggesting that we plow millions into vastly increasing the number of speed cameras to blanket the regional road network your argument is nonsensical.

The only way in which your proposed planning system makes sense is if you ignore population density, accident blackspots and so on.
I'm assuming you never looked at the map I included.

Refer to this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73001216&postcount=5


I'm not suggesting we plough millions into vastly increasing the number of speed cameras.
I'm suggesting we get back some of the millions we've already ploughed into GoSafe Vans, and redeploy these resources on our rural roads.

Zombrex

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The only way in which your proposed planning system makes sense is if you ignore population density, accident blackspots and so on.

Yes, that is the point. Accident backspots are not the only places accidents happen. They are just areas where higher level of accidents happen than other points on the road (the key term being points, not the road itself).

Focusing on them at the expense of all the other areas is illogical.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I'm assuming you never looked at the map I included.

You don't need to show me the map again, I worked on the map :rolleyes:

Take any road with an accident black spot. In the vast majority of cases the number of accidents else where on the road out number the number of accidents at the accident black spot.

Placing a speed camera at the accident black spot will therefore miss the majority of speeding on that road, and all the other near by roads that also have accidents but no accident black spots.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting we plough millions into vastly increasing the number of speed cameras.

Without that you have no hope of the sort of coverage you would require. Again your whole argument is based on naive reasoning.

Pedro K

Wicknight wrote: »

*Groan*

This sort of nonsense is part of the problem. Everyone thinks that when they speed it is in a perfectly safe fashion, and all the accidents are really cased by boy racers taking the piss.

Is that what everyone thinks? thanks for clearing that up, I didn't realise you knew everyone.

In fact studies in England have shown that less than 4% of their accidents are caused by speed.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_camera_facts.php

I would think that the accidents are mostly cause by failing to pay due care and attention, not "boy racers taking the piss".

Wicknight wrote:

The reality is the opposite. While a car full of 17 year olds wrapping themselves around a tree makes the headlines the reality is that these are the minority of road accidents.

Yes, but the majority of fatal accidents don't happen on motorways.

Wicknight wrote:

As I said to bluewolf this notion that speeding is fine except on particular roads at particular dangerous spots where we should put cameras is nonsense. I've worked with the RSA/police road accident data. There certainly are these accident black spots which have a statistically higher number of accidents, but that does not mean accidents do not happen else where. They do, but because they are spread out they do not become black spots. But then that doesn't really matter if you are dead. If there is a road with 15 accidents a year, 5 of which all happened at the same spot, it means very little to you if you are hit a car in one of the other 10 spots along the whole road. The speed camera at the accident black spot does nothing for you then.

The notion that speeding is fine so long as you are not in one of these accident black spots is what causes all these other. Speeders speed everywhere. You combat road accidents by getting them to slow down in general, not just when they themselves think there is a danger, because by definition they are not in a position to correctly determine this.

So every other accident in Ireland is caused by speeding? Jaysus, that's some claim. You combat road accidents by improving driver education and training, and in some cases, improving the infrastructure. Some roads I've driven in this country are absolutely horrendous (yet Ironically have speed limits of 80kph or 100kph...).

Wicknight wrote:

Which is worse depends on who crashes. You appreciate that people crash on motorways, right? And when they do they tend to kill more people. Crashes on motorways are rarer than rural roads, but they also have much higher fatality rates.



From the point of view of the driver though your example it is the same person in both cases. The person who thinks they can happily speed on a motorway is the same person who thinks they can happily speed on a rural road.

absolute bullplop. There is a huge difference between going 10-20 kph over the speed limit on a motorway (especially considering parts of the three lane M50 are 100kph), and going 10kph over on a bad road (which as mentioned, often already have high limits).

Again, you've managed to spectacularly tar everybody who goes any bit over the speed limit with the same brush.

Wicknight wrote:

And you are much more likely to catch them breaking the law on the motorway than on a rural road. So it seems like a no-brainer.

Yes, so like I said, revenue raiser, not life saver.

Wicknight wrote:

Motorways are not "safe". They are safer. And do you really think a person who thinks they are perfectly safe breaking the speedlimit on a motorway doesn't also think they are perfectly safe breaking the speedlimit on a rural road?

The issue here is drivers thinking their ability extends beyond the law.

Already addressed this.

Wicknight wrote:

That is an issue with the driver, it doesn't matter if you put that driver on a motorway or on a rural road.

Yes. Bad driving is an issue with the driver. But going over the speed limit is not necessarily bad driving. Sections of the Autobhan don't have a speed limit, so would you like to tell me, at what point the drivers on that road become "bad drivers"? Is it when they stray a couple of kph over 130 (which believe me, they often do), or is it when they sit in the overtaking lane doing 110kph (which a lot of Irish drivers do)?

Wicknight wrote:

That driver will speed anywhere because they have convinced themselves that they are the exception to the rule, they do not need to be held back by the rules of the road. The rules are for other people, they are a better driver than other people they don't need to follow them.

And yet again, you have tarred everybody who goes over the speed limit with the same brush. Have you never overtaken a car?

Godge

Wicknight wrote: »

Because speeders speed everywhere.


.

Is this true?

Do I travel at 130 kph on motorways with a speed limit of 120 kph but are probably designed for 160 kph or something like that? Sometimes, especially at times/sections when traffic is light.

Do I travel at 90 kph on rural roads with a speed limit of 80 kph which were probably designed for horse and cart? Never, average below 60 kph on these roads, maybe even less. To do otherwise is madness.

Of course, you could be right if the speed limits are wrong which is possible. In parts of Europe, the speed limit on motorways is 130 kph or above and they would never allow the 80 kph speed limit on the rural roads we have it on.

Zombrex

Pedro K wrote: »

Is that what everyone thinks? thanks for clearing that up, I didn't realise you knew everyone.

In fact studies in England have shown that less than 4% of their accidents are caused by speed.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_camera_facts.php

I would think that the accidents are mostly cause by failing to pay due care and attention, not "boy racers taking the piss".

I didn't claim all accidents were caused by speed. You seem to be having a conversation with someone else yet directing it to me.

Pedro K wrote: »

Yes, but the majority of fatal accidents don't happen on motorways.

And?

Pedro K wrote: »

So every other accident in Ireland is caused by speeding?

Again I don't know who you think claimed this but it wasn't me. You want to be discussing it with them.

Pedro K wrote: »

absolute bullplop. There is a huge difference between going 10-20 kph over the speed limit on a motorway (especially considering parts of the three lane M50 are 100kph), and going 10kph over on a bad road (which as mentioned, often already have high limits).

Again, you've managed to spectacularly tar everybody who goes any bit over the speed limit with the same brush.

I'm tarring them with the "breaking the speed limit brush". Are you saying they are not breaking the speed limit?

Pedro K wrote: »

Yes, so like I said, revenue raiser, not life saver.

If you can think of another way to punish people who break the law other than a fine I'm all ears. Perhaps you think speeders should be thrown in jail.

Pedro K wrote: »

Yes. Bad driving is an issue with the driver. But going over the speed limit is not necessarily bad driving.

That is an oxymoron. By definition breaking the speed limit is bad driving, given that good driving is driving within the rules of the road.

It is moronic statements like yours that makes me think some drivers don't need speed cameras, they need a frontal lobotomy.

Zombrex

Godge wrote: »

Of course, you could be right if the speed limits are wrong which is possible.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

One wonders why we bother with rules of the road at all.

Pedro K

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't claim all accidents were caused by speed. You seem to be having a conversation with someone else yet directing it to me.


And?



Again I don't know who you think claimed this but it wasn't me. You want to be discussing it with them.



I'm tarring them with the "breaking the speed limit brush". Are you saying they are not breaking the speed limit?



If you can think of another way to punish people who break the law other than a fine I'm all ears. Perhaps you think speeders should be thrown in jail.



That is an oxymoron. By definition breaking the speed limit is bad driving, given that good driving is driving within the rules of the road.

It is moronic statements like yours that makes me think some drivers don't need speed cameras, they need a frontal lobotomy.

You claimed

As I said to bluewolf this notion that speeding is fine except on particular roads at particular dangerous spots where we should put cameras is nonsense. I've worked with the RSA/police road accident data. There certainly are these accident black spots which have a statistically higher number of accidents, but that does not mean accidents do not happen else where. They do, but because they are spread out they do not become black spots. But then that doesn't really matter if you are dead. If there is a road with 15 accidents a year, 5 of which all happened at the same spot, it means very little to you if you are hit a car in one of the other 10 spots along the whole road. The speed camera at the accident black spot does nothing for you then.

The notion that speeding is fine so long as you are not in one of these accident black spots is what causes all these other. Speeders speed everywhere. You combat road accidents by getting them to slow down in general, not just when they themselves think there is a danger, because by definition they are not in a position to correctly determine this.

The bolded part is where you attributed all these other accidents to speed.

I'll ask one of my questions again. At what point do drivers on the limitless sections of the Autobhan become "bad drivers"? 125kph? 130kph? 150kph?


It is moronic posts like yours that will leave some of us needing brain surgery as talking to you is akin to bouncing one's head off a brick wall.

Zombrex

Pedro K wrote: »

The bolded part is where you attributed all these other accidents to speed.

Don't be silly. I was contrasting accidents at accident black spots vs all the other ones. This notion that if we just get people to slow down at accident black spots everything will be fine.

Pedro K wrote: »

I'll ask one of my questions again. At what point do drivers on the limitless sections of the Autobhan become "bad drivers"? 125kph? 130kph? 150kph?

The point where they drive illegally, obviously. Good driving is driving to the rules of the road, not driving to your own personal assessment of what is safe at that given moment. If everyone did that half the nation would be dead from car accidents. Red lights? Sure they are just for the other morons who can't make an assessment of whether it is safe to go or not! Stop signs? Just a recommendation, obviously if you think it is safe just power through!

Moronic.

Pedro K wrote: »

It is moronic posts like yours that will leave some of us needing brain surgery as talking to you is akin to bouncing one's head off a brick wall.

Well remember this conversation when you wrap your car around a tree and all you can keep saying is "But but but but I though it was safe..." :rolleyes: