Operation Slowdown -- will a 24 enforcement blitz make any difference?

Iwannahurl

Operation Slowdown runs from 0700 this morning to 0700 on Saturday.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=9550

June saw an awful spike in road deaths, climbing to 25 from the previous month's total of 13.

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=138

July and August are typically bad months for road deaths, but will a 24-hour crackdown make any appreciable difference?

Or is this awareness-raising and nothing more?

dubhthach

I doubt it personally. The whole point surely of having traffic law and a Traffic Corps is so as to enforce them. The fact that each of these "blitzs" are well advertised beforehand doesn't help. If all they can do is the odd 24hour crackdown every so often then they should do it on the sly and then only inform the media afterwards with results of the crackdown etc.

June last year the road deaths were 15 for June, so that's an increase of 66% year on year for one month! It's back to 2008 figures when 28 were killed in June:
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=138

tayto lover

They don't seem to have the manpower to make it a success. The Traffic Corps has been badly rundown and ill-equipped in the last number of years, I rarely see them on the roads around here.
This seems to be just another PR exercise to try and scare people to slow down.
Motorists should do that of their own accord anyway.

martingriff

dubhthach wrote: »

I doubt it personally. The whole point surely of having traffic law and a Traffic Corps is so as to enforce them. The fact that each of these "blitzs" are well advertised beforehand doesn't help. If all they can do is the odd 24hour crackdown every so often then they should do it on the sly and then only inform the media afterwards with results of the crackdown etc.

June last year the road deaths were 15 for June, so that's an increase of 66% year on year for one month! It's back to 2008 figures when 28 were killed in June:
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=138

I think that the reason its well advertised is for people to be more aware and slow down rather than jam on the breaks. Also if it was not you be sure there be a lot of people talking about money generating exercise

martingriff

tayto lover wrote: »

They don't seem to have the manpower to make it a success. The Traffic Corps has been badly rundown and ill-equipped in the last number of years, I rarely see them on the roads around here.
This seems to be just another PR exercise to try and scare people to slow down.
Motorists should do that of their own accord anyway.

There are a lot of things people should do of our own accord. They will be in the most visible area.

Zubeneschamali

Iwannahurl wrote: »

will a 24-hour crackdown make any appreciable difference?

Or is this awareness-raising and nothing more?

Not even that, it's just a knee-jerk "do something to be seen to be doing something" in response to the recent increase in deaths.

tayto lover

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not even that, it's just a knee-jerk "do something to be seen to be doing something" in response to the recent increase in deaths.

Was thinking that too. It's a bit like the Camera Vans just sitting inside the 60 KPH or 50 KPH zones where there are rarely any accidents occurring. Why do you never see them out on open roads where there are 80 KPH limits?
Are these just more revenue collecting exercises ?

celticbest

They would be far better off doing an operation to ensure people drive in the correct lane.

I drove to work this morning on the M50 and there was hardly anyone using Lane 1, I travelled from the Start of the M50SB to J10 Ballymount & I only had to use Lane 2 to overtake on about five occasions, I know it's illegal but I lost count of the amount of people I undertook, I did not go above 100 km/h for the length of my journey as I set my limiter.

All that seems to be focused on in this country is speed, if all aspects of bad driving were to be enforced correctly this would cut the number of accidents as well.

Another is R/A's per below example I don't know how many times I've seen people cut lanes, over the years I have seen many accidents because of the lack of road manners that exists in this country.

antoobrien

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=9550

There will be highly visible speed checkpoints on national primary and secondary roads, carried out by local members and the Garda Traffic Corps, and also by GoSafe vans.

The cynic in me says that this has more to do with the drop in revenue from motoring fines the same time last year than any real attempt at road safety improvements.

H1 2011 - €6,561,000
H1 2012 - €3,972,000

As celticbest pointed out there are other issues such as lane discilpine which are as dangerous on motorways & DCs as speeding that could be tackled. This is just the same old unimaginative thinking from AGS & RSA.

Zubeneschamali

antoobrien wrote: »

H1 2011 - €6,561,000
H1 2012 - €3,972,000

But... but... but...

How can there be an decrease in speeding at the same time as an increase in deaths, when we all know that speeding is the only cause of deaths?

christmas2012

speed is the one killer,going too fast,can mean you dont react or have enough time to react to simple hazards thus causing a crash or killing yourself and another passenger,overtaking on one driveway lanes into oncoming traffic,overtaking on a bend etc..all dangerous moves..

antoobrien

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But... but... but...

How can there be an decrease in speeding at the same time as an increase in deaths, when we all know that speeding is the only cause of deaths?

There has been a lot of coverage of the road worthiness of the traffic corp fleet, so it's probably more to do with lower levels of enforcement, After all Irish drivers can't possibly get (more) responsible.

Giuseppe1

a time wasting exercise by the Gardai and the Minister to massage figures,expect to hear useless propaganda about ''increased convictions'' for ''speeding'' as the Gardai will set them up in safe traffic,very low fatality areas to massage figures and do nothing for road safety it cynically massage s figures for the useless Minister and looks good on paper. Until I see the Gardai park outside of pubs at closing time and enforce safe driving on the back roads between the early hours of the morning where 99% of fatalities occur it will be a waste of time and taxpayers money!

christmas2012

I agree they shouldnt say when they are doing the blitz

L1011

christmas2012 wrote: »

I agree they shouldnt say when they are doing the blitz

The stated point is to try and prevent accidents, so not saying when they were doing it would mean there was no point in doing it.


100km so far today, not seen one checkpoint/GATSO van.

Aidan1

The fact that each of these "blitzs" are well advertised beforehand doesn't help

Entirely incorrect. The purpose of the 'blitz' is the PR or behavioural effect of having it, not any increase in enforcement metrics (people caught speeding, hours of static speed camera placement ect).

The principle is simple, you tell everyone that there's going to be a huge enforcement push, and people begin to watch their speed on the basis of a perceived threat- which has a far greater effect on safety than just plonking a few speed traps around the place.

Of course, enforcement needs to go on all the time so that people are conditioned to it also, and that includes not just speeding but lane discipline, signalling at roundabouts, drink driving, driving while on the phone etc. But there is little doubt but that speed is a major causative factor in a lot of fatal collisions, and one that can be dealt with.

AugustusMinimus

People will slow down today and will be back to speed tomorrow.

I'm suprised the RSA don't do the sensible thing. Run a campaign, do not mention a thing about road deaths or injuries, but bang home to the population just how much more petrol you burn at say 100mph than at 75mph.

You'll get a lot of people think about saving cash. I feel a lot of people would respond better to this than the constant lecturing that speed kills.

Green Diesel

Didn't see any speed guns or vans today, but did see bus lane watching outside Heuston and on the quays this morning. Also saw yellow box watching (I presume that's what they were at) on two junctions in Drumcondra.

SeanW

If there was a focus on highly visible cameras in places that have long histories of speed related accidents, it would be very helpful indeed. But I suspect that any extra cameras will be placed on dual carriageways etc, especially ones with ridiculous (50, 60 and 80kph) limits.

galwaycyclist

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

People will slow down today and will be back to speed tomorrow.

I'm suprised the RSA don't do the sensible thing. Run a campaign, do not mention a thing about road deaths or injuries, but bang home to the population just how much more petrol you burn at say 100mph than at 75mph.

You'll get a lot of people think about saving cash. I feel a lot of people would respond better to this than the constant lecturing that speed kills.

There is a view that this is what was primarily responsible for the recent fall in road deaths anyway. Increased petrol prices and high rates on unemployment have both been associated with falls in road deaths in other countries. Ireland has had both but for some reason neither the garda nor RSA ever seem to mention these as factors.

Iwannahurl

Giuseppe1 wrote: »

... back roads between the early hours of the morning where 99% of fatalities occur

99%?

antoobrien wrote: »

The cynic in me says that this has more to do with the drop in revenue from motoring fines the same time last year than any real attempt at road safety improvements.
H1 2011 - €6,561,000
H1 2012 - €3,972,000

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But... but... but...
How can there be an decrease in speeding at the same time as an increase in deaths, when we all know that speeding is the only cause of deaths?

There may be more than one reason for a drop in revenue from fines. Reduced offending could be one reason. Reduced enforcement could be another. For example, it has been reported that, due to cutbacks, the Traffic Corps is being redeployed for general policing duties.

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

People will slow down today and will be back to speed tomorrow.

I'm suprised the RSA don't do the sensible thing. Run a campaign, do not mention a thing about road deaths or injuries, but bang home to the population just how much more petrol you burn at say 100mph than at 75mph.

You'll get a lot of people think about saving cash. I feel a lot of people would respond better to this than the constant lecturing that speed kills.

I don't doubt that the halo effect will be small. With regard to the cash costs of fast driving, I would have thought that was self-enforcing. Then again, maybe speeding is a pleasure some motorists are willing to pay for. That said, it could be a good angle to promote a general reduction in speed, along the lines of the Wipe Off 5 campaign in Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-rCf3ScrCA

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There is a view that this is what was primarily responsible for the recent fall in road deaths anyway. Increased petrol prices and high rates on unemployment have both been associated with falls in road deaths in other countries. Ireland has had both but for some reason neither the garda nor RSA ever seem to mention these as factors.

Primarily responsible? I hae me doots.

The context of Operation Slowdown is (a) a recent spike in road deaths and (b) a recurring phenomenon whereby road deaths increase during the months of July and August. Are petrol prices and unemployment levels related to these events?

If motorists are slowing down, and hence making the roads safer, because they are unemployed and short of cash, then I can only conclude that I live in a wealthy fully-employed neighbourhood! Speeding is endemic, with motorists driving at or below the limit being a tiny minority. The streets are not littered with dead and injured, of course, but one effect of the speeding is that cycling and walking (the largest group of fatalities worldwide being pedestrians hit by motor vehicles) is discouraged. Not a desirable outcome, I would say.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Primarily responsible? I hae me doots.

You're starting to sound like a parody of yourself at this point - if a country goes from a situation of mass (albeit illusory) wealth and near full employment, through an economic collapse, where unemployment skyrockets, as does the cost of fuel, is it not reasonable to believe that motorist/kilometres/year (and many of its associated costs) will fall?

a recent spike in road deaths and

But we have so much new regulation on motorists - lower blood alcohol limits (even though drink driving accidents are often caused by those totally pissed), ever reducing speed limits and contracts for private speed cameras, tighter rules for L drivers, and so on and so on, how do you explain the spike? After all, by the logic of the anti-car extremists, regulating the crap out of motoring should make it demonstrably safer!

Speeding is endemic, with motorists driving at or below the limit being a tiny minority. The streets are not littered with dead and injured

But with all the scaremongering about speed, one would expect the streets to be littered with dead and injured.

of course, but one effect of the speeding is that cycling and walking (the largest group of fatalities worldwide being pedestrians hit by motor vehicles) is discouraged. Not a desirable outcome, I would say.

I would suggest that what you need is better cycling infrastructure, wider paths, speed ramps and/or improved pedestrian crossing. But we know from your views about housing estate planning that you desire the streets of a housing estate being built so narrow (and houses so close together) that retrofitting for example a cycle lane is impossible.

BTW I am both a pedestrian and a motorist and when I walk, as long as I have a good quality of path and adequate means of crossing junctions, I don't care what speed the cars are going at, within reason of course.

ardmacha

Fuel costs have a limited enough effect on accidents, I suspect. Driving at 105 instead of 125 on a motorway will save fuel, but probably not hugely change the accident rate. Driving at 60 instead of 65 in the video above may reduce accidents but not greatly reduce fuel consumption.

fullstop

celticbest wrote: »

They would be far better off doing an operation to ensure people drive in the correct lane.

I drove to work this morning on the M50 and there was hardly anyone using Lane 1, I travelled from the Start of the M50SB to J10 Ballymount & I only had to use Lane 2 to overtake on about five occasions, I know it's illegal but I lost count of the amount of people I undertook, I did not go above 100 km/h for the length of my journey as I set my limiter.

All that seems to be focused on in this country is speed, if all aspects of bad driving were to be enforced correctly this would cut the number of accidents as well.

Another is R/A's per below example I don't know how many times I've seen people cut lanes, over the years I have seen many accidents because of the lack of road manners that exists in this country.

In the first picture, presumably red line is on the roundabout first? If that's the case then blue line should not be entering the roundabout, therefore no crash.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

I would suggest that what you need is better cycling infrastructure, wider paths, speed ramps and/or improved pedestrian crossing. But we know from your views about housing estate planning that you desire the streets of a housing estate being built so narrow (and houses so close together) that retrofitting for example a cycle lane is impossible.

Cycle lanes/paths generally don't belong in places like housing estates. There are sometimes good reasons to have them in parts of housing estates (ie to keep a cycle route clear and readable / intact for all road users), but generally cycle lanes and paths are for larger roads.

I'm far from a shared use fanatic, but housing estates are a great place for shared use. But in a mix of access roads etc.

SeanW wrote: »

BTW I am both a pedestrian and a motorist and when I walk, as long as I have a good quality of path and adequate means of crossing junctions, I don't care what speed the cars are going at, within reason of course.

Lots of cyclists don't want cycle tracks on even the largest of roads, that does not mean cycle tracks on such roads do not generally make things better.

Iwannahurl

SeanW wrote: »

You're starting to sound like a parody of yourself at this point - if a country goes from a situation of mass (albeit illusory) wealth and near full employment, through an economic collapse, where unemployment skyrockets, as does the cost of fuel, is it not reasonable to believe that motorist/kilometres/year (and many of its associated costs) will fall?

But we have so much new regulation on motorists - lower blood alcohol limits (even though drink driving accidents are often caused by those totally pissed), ever reducing speed limits and contracts for private speed cameras, tighter rules for L drivers, and so on and so on, how do you explain the spike? After all, by the logic of the anti-car extremists, regulating the crap out of motoring should make it demonstrably safer!

But with all the scaremongering about speed, one would expect the streets to be littered with dead and injured.

I would suggest that what you need is better cycling infrastructure, wider paths, speed ramps and/or improved pedestrian crossing. But we know from your views about housing estate planning that you desire the streets of a housing estate being built so narrow (and houses so close together) that retrofitting for example a cycle lane is impossible.

BTW I am both a pedestrian and a motorist and when I walk, as long as I have a good quality of path and adequate means of crossing junctions, I don't care what speed the cars are going at, within reason of course.

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Who am I to restrain the imagination and enthusiasm of someone who passed his driving test in 2008?

The point referred to earlier, IIRC, is that the economic downturn could be "primarily" responsible for lower fatalities on Irish roads in recent years. I doubt that, but I'm willing to consider any evidence.

Despite what you seem to believe, speeding is a far bigger issue than, say, cars driving through puddles and splashing pedestrians.

Personally speaking, as long as my locality has a suitable traffic mix and volume, appropriate speed limits, traffic calming, well designed and maintained roads, ample space for cyclists and pedestrians and barrier-free routes for walking and cycling I don't care what speed the traffic is going at.

Within reason of course.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There may be more than one reason for a drop in revenue from fines. Reduced offending could be one reason. Reduced enforcement could be another. For example, it has been reported that, due to cutbacks, the Traffic Corps is being redeployed for general policing duties.

Tbh I have not noticed any drop off in enforcement this year - if anything I've seen more traffic corps vans & bikes on the road so far this year than the entire year last year.

I'll suggest a few things far more likely than a reduction in enforcement for the drop off in fines.

In their 14 months of operation the gosafe vans collected €10m in fines (Nov 2010 - dec 2011). Compare that to the 2010 figure of 11.37m - that's (prorated for 12 months) a 75% increase in fines. Motorists are learning where the vans like to park and are slowing down. The current levels of fines now below the same time in 2010.

The economy - between employment & fuel prices there are less cars on the road and more motorists are driving to get more out of their tanks. Fuel prices are up 20c/l since the gosafe vans were introduced.

Another issue to cosndier is that the amount of money that was gathered in fines dropped dramatically between 2009 (15.665m) & 2010(11.372m). In those periods we saw massive drops in employment (in the order of 300k people extra heading towards the dole office instead of the job), massive fuel price increases and the opening of a large number of sections of DC & motorway that would have increased the average speed limit on a route (no need to do 50km/h through Kilreekil or Craughwell villages any more) - meaning less places to be caught speeding.

Iwannahurl

In which case why would AGS bother merely trying to raise revenue by this means since (a) motorists are slowing down and avoiding fines and (b) there are far fewer alleged cash cows to milk?

antoobrien wrote: »

The cynic in me says that this has more to do with the drop in revenue from motoring fines the same time last year than any real attempt at road safety improvements.

If speed cameras and speeding detection operations are effective, ie motorists in general slow down, then the net outcome is a reduction in revenue as well as a reduction in speed. Both can be regarded as successes, even though those infamous government coffers are relatively empty.

So it's back to the real reason for enforcement: reducing road casualties.

I spotted a quote from Noel Brett of the RSA in Saturday's Irish Times. This was the original article on July 4:

Month marked by 25 road fatalities 'catastrophic'

JUNE WAS a “catastrophic month” for road fatalities and must not be repeated, chief executive of the road safety authority Noel Brett has said.

The road safety chief was speaking at the announcement of a new Garda anti-speeding initiative, Operation Slow Down, and said road users were in danger of sliding back into bad habits and, consequently, putting lives at risk.

With 96 road deaths June had been a “horrendous month” which was one of the worst in terms of road safety for several years, he said.

“It has been an absolutely catastrophic month. My own chairman, my own board and all the other agencies involved, we are really, really perturbed at this stage.”

Three people had already died on the roads in July, making an urgent transformation in people’s behaviour essential.

“If we keep on going like we are going we will be back up over 200 fatalities or higher this year. That is extremely concerning. It is a short six years ago we were killing more than one person per day and we just cannot countenance going back to that position.”

That was the feeling I had in June, that there was someone being killed on the road every day. It was starting to remind me of the bad old days. I'd say the RSA are well rattled.

Tragedy

Indeed, unfortunately instead of trying to look at the cause of the relatively recent increase in road deaths, they went back to the good old "let's target speeding regardless of if it has any relevance".

Baldilocks

Obviously Speed enforcement of some kind is required, but placing speed cameras at known black spots is hardly the answer to reduce accidents.

It is common practice in industrial operations to monitor the no. of accidents and near misses that occur, and if one particular process or location has more than the average, that process or location is re-designed to eliminate (as far possible) the chances of the accident occurring again. It is a disgrace that our solution to accident blackspots is to take peoples' picture.

opti0nal

Baldilocks wrote: »

It is common practice in industrial operations to monitor the no. of accidents and near misses that occur, and if one particular process or location has more than the average, that process or location is re-designed to eliminate (as far possible) the chances of the accident occurring again. It is a disgrace that our solution to accident blackspots is to take peoples' picture.

To take this analogy further, if a part fails to work correctly on a number of occasions, it's removed. Hence, penalty points and eventual disqualification.

Zubeneschamali

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'd say the RSA are well rattled.

Perhaps now they'll start actually studying the causes of deaths, and making plans to address them, instead of just shouting "Speed kills" all the time.

The rare bits of data which escape from them have shown they focusing on the wrong areas for years.

Victor Meldrew

Just finished a 1,000 km family holiday around the northern half of the Island.

Overtaking on "national" roads is the scariest thing I witnessed over the week.

you will not catch that with speed traps.

One observation on getting people to slow down.

I started an experiment to see if changing my driving style could improve mileage. I have gone from 9.4l/100 kms to 7.8l in urban driving and got 6.8L on the 1,000 km trip above. Large petrol car.

Largely by not speeding and not getting anxious to overtake. I drove pretty gently anyway. 17% fuel saving by not driving aggressively. Car used to gibe 9L /100 on long trips, so that is a 29% saving as per above.

That is real and constitutes a free week of driving a month. not to mention the decrease in wear and tear on the car.

They should appeal to our inner skinflint in the next campaign.

Best part? Think of all the excise and VAT I am NOT giving the government.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Speeding is endemic, with motorists driving at or below the limit being a tiny minority.

A slower moving object perceives a faster moving object passing it to be moving much faster than the actual speed, so how can you tell if a car is speeding from a bike? Got a radar gun mounted on your handle bars?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If speed cameras and speeding detection operations are effective, ie motorists in general slow down, then the net outcome is a reduction in revenue as well as a reduction in speed.

FTR I think that speeding is reducing, but it's not down to the "safety cameras" or speed traps (the locations for both can be watched for and the speed limits blithely ignored subsequently), it's down to a change in the economic conditions that people are finding themselves in. As Victor Meldew has pointed out - driving at a slightly slower speeed gets you further, so the increases in petrol & diesel prices have acted as more of a deterrent than enforcement.

Iwannahurl

Baldilocks wrote: »

Obviously Speed enforcement of some kind is required, but placing speed cameras at known black spots is hardly the answer to reduce accidents.

It is common practice in industrial operations to monitor the no. of accidents and near misses that occur, and if one particular process or location has more than the average, that process or location is re-designed to eliminate (as far possible) the chances of the accident occurring again. It is a disgrace that our solution to accident blackspots is to take peoples' picture.

Why ever not? In any given system higher speed means higher risk. It's perfectly rational to expect that the overall risk of a crash at a black spot is reduced if traffic moves more slowly on average through that area.

I agree that engineering is needed to remediate whatever might be wrong with the road alignment or whatever. The RSA agrees too, which is why they emphasise engineering as well as enforcement (and education). I guess all they can do is make recommendations in that regard. The rest is down to the NRA, Local Authorities, Depts. of Transport and Environment etc. We've got lots of glitzy new motorways now, but it pains me to see the slow pace of progress on other roads. Or worse, deterioration.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Got a radar gun mounted on your handle bars?

You've given me an idea!

antoobrien wrote: »

FTR I think that speeding is reducing, but it's not down to the "safety cameras" or speed traps (the locations for both can be watched for and the speed limits blithely ignored subsequently), it's down to a change in the economic conditions that people are finding themselves in. As Victor Meldew has pointed out - driving at a slightly slower speeed gets you further, so the increases in petrol & diesel prices have acted as more of a deterrent than enforcement.

"Every little helps." ~Josef Tesco.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why ever not?

Blackspots tend to happen at places where the roads are not up to scratch in some fashion. The classic example from Galway city is the pedestrian lights at Dunnes. A speed camera won't help that, a redesign is required.

Cameras on blackspots = knee jerk.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You've given me an idea!

Good luck with that, the packges that are small enough need a stable platform (effectively stationary). A bike isn't stable enough (I love being a killjoy sometimes).

Plus there's issues with vigilantism...

Iwannahurl wrote: »

"Every little helps." ~Josef Tesco.

No it doesn't, it promotes more a more dangerous behavior pattern - with some slowing down and others not slowing down and attempting to get by them. Inappropriate speed limits just promote them being ignored entirely, throw in speed checks that promote inconsistent behaviour, trouble - hence accidents - is being asked for.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Plus there's issues with vigilantism...

No it doesn't, it promotes more a more dangerous behavior pattern - with some slowing down and others not slowing down and attempting to get by them. Inappropriate speed limits just promote them being ignored entirely, throw in speed checks that promote inconsistent behaviour, trouble - hence accidents - is being asked for.

1. Vigilantism? How so?

2. The evidence is that speed surveillance operations reduce road casualties. There is no evidence to the contrary. If you think there is, post the links here (scientific studies, not the Mail or Telegraph please).

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Vigilantism? How so?

Taking the law into ones own hands.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. The evidence is that speed surveillance operations reduce road casualties.

Links!

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Blackspots tend to happen at places where the roads are not up to scratch in some fashion. The classic example from Galway city is the pedestrian lights at Dunnes. A speed camera won't help that, a redesign is required.

In any given system higher speed means higher risk. Reduce the speed and you reduce the risk.

That doesn't remove the need for engineering. Redesign is necessary in certain cases, and is a more sustainable solution than perpetual speed surveillance. "Safe systems" is where road safety policy is heading these days, I believe.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

Taking the law into ones own hands.

Links!

1. Which law?

2. Took me a few seconds to find this: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed_enforcement/speed_enforcement_techniques_and_their_effectiveness/speed_cameras.htm
I particularly recommend Rune Elvik's work in this area. For (lots) more links, see my various posts in this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056059521

3. There is no evidence to the contrary. If you think there is, post the links here (scientific studies, not the Mail or Telegraph please).

Zubeneschamali

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In any given system higher speed means higher risk. Reduce the speed and you reduce the risk.

All else being equal.

And yet speeding has dropped, and deaths have gone up, so all else is not equal.

So lets reduce speeding some more!

Victor Meldrew

antoobrien wrote: »

No it doesn't, it promotes more a more dangerous behavior pattern - with some slowing down and others not slowing down and attempting to get by them. Inappropriate speed limits just promote them being ignored entirely, throw in speed checks that promote inconsistent behaviour, trouble - hence accidents - is being asked for.

My point was that staying within the speed limit and being less aggressive saves fuel, reduces stress, and wear and tear on the car.

A big part of driving less aggressively is being mature enough to know that passing someone doing 95 in a 100km national road is not always worth the stress and risk.

If you can leave a decent distance between the car in front, you don't have to brake as much, which reduces the formation of standing waves of slow / stationary vehicles behind you, which REALLY generate frustration,

It is a bit Zen, but once traffic is moving around 80/85 in a good 100km road, I just chill out and let it be...

I just did 1,000kms with two small, bored and loud kids in the back of the car, i was not seeking to extend my time in the car by one minute. Believe me.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In any given systemhigher speed means higher risk. Reduce the speed and you reduce the risk.

Don't talk in generics, your arguments fall down. In computer systems higher speeds != higher risks (in fact lower speeds often increase the risk, see Ulster Bank for what happens when processing proceeds too slowly). This brings into question the understanding you have of "general systems" - making the rest of your argument suspect.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That doesn't remove the need for engineering. Redesign is necessary in certain cases, and is a more sustainable solution than perpetual speed surveillance.

Doth mine eyes deceive me? Proposing redesigning a system to reduce blackspots means that will be cases where it will be required that the system be extended in order to remove them. Did you really mean that?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Which law?

Enforcing your own traffic law is by definition a vigilante action.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

3. There is no evidence to the contrary. If you think there is, post the links here (scientific studies, not the Mail or Telegraph please).

Speed awareness Myths

Fact: One in three road deaths are speed-related.

Response: Although the official line is that "one in three" (i.e. 33.3%) of road deaths are "speed-related", other sources put the figure at 7.5% or even lower. Most people agree that excessive speed is a contributory factor in many fatal accidents but there are clearly other common causes such as driver inattention, pulling out without looking, looking but not seeing, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, mobile phones, not keeping a safe distance, etc. Another interesting question to ask is how road crash investigators can tell whether or not the driver was speeding in cases where there are no neutral eye-witnesses and where tyre tracks cannot be measured.

Many road campaigners fall into a causation fallacy - they see something and attribute it without adequately addressing all the variables.

6. The following figures "prove beyond doubt" that speed cameras do not save lives (according to the Association of British Drivers):



Response: 6. These figures do not prove that speed cameras save lives, nor are they proof that speed cameras have not saved lives. This is a fallacy of correlation and causation. There may have been (and probably were) other factors influencing the number of road deaths.

Iwannahurl

I doubt those deaths occurred at, say, 30 km/h.

Reducing speed will reduce risk, so it's a goal worth pursuing.

Someone suggested to me recently that the reason for the spike could have been all that rain in June. Plausible?

antoobrien

Victor Meldrew wrote: »

My point was that staying within the speed limit and being less aggressive saves fuel, reduces stress, and wear and tear on the car.

A big part of driving less aggressively is being mature enough to know that passing someone doing 95 in a 100km national road is not always worth the stress and risk.
.
.
.
.
I just did 1,000kms with two small, bored and loud kids in the back of the car, i was not seeking to extend my time in the car by one minute. Believe me.

Curious, in your 1,000kms how many Garda/PSNI cars/gosafe vans did you see?

I have driven regularly between Galway & Dublin for years and I rarely see speed enforcement vehicles. So, I know it's not a point you were making, but the disincentive (for me) to speed is the fuel savings, rather than the prospect of getting points & a fine.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

1. Don't talk in generics, your arguments fall down. In computer systems higher speeds != higher risks (in fact lower speeds often increase the risk, see Ulster Bank for what happens when processing proceeds too slowly). This brings into question the understanding you have of "general systems" - making the rest of your argument suspect.

2. Doth mine eyes deceive me? Proposing redesigning a system to reduce blackspots means that will be cases where it will be required that the system be extended in order to remove them. Did you really mean that?

3. Enforcing your own traffic law is by definition a vigilante action.

4. Speed awareness Myths

5. Many road campaigners fall into a causation fallacy - they see something and attribute it without adequately addressing all the variables.

1. Computers forum on Boards.

2. What?

3. Eh?

4. Who is this Mr Yates?

5. There is no evidence to the contrary. If you think there is, post the links here (scientific studies, not the Mail or Telegraph please). Or Mr Yates.

Baldilocks

Speed is very rarely the cause of an accident, it is a contributing factor to the severity of the accident.
If speed were the cause, then our motorways would be the most dangerous roads in the country, both in terms of numbers or accidents and the severity of the resulting accidents.

Let's take 2 known blackspots, (frequent locations for cameras) the N20 (Cork Limerick, between New Two Pothouse and Buttevant) and the N28 (Cork-Ringaskiddy at the top of the hill). The N20 links our 2nd and 3rd largest cities and that particular stretch of the road has been a disaster area for a long time (at least 30 years). The N28 takes traffic from the port of Ringaskiddy to Cork City and onwards, and for one section of approximately 1km, it is shocking - the crest of a hill, with several private homes that have blind exits onto a very busy national route (between our second largest city and it's port, the decidedly large pharma industry that is located in/around Ringaskiddy, and the town of Carrigaline (pop. 20k) . The arriving tourists and truckers might think it's quaint, but it's not. it's embarassing and dangerous, barely wide enough for 2 trucks.
Rather than fix the road in both cases, the powers that be have opted to take pictures of the 'bold/naughty' people and give them a fine and some penalty points. How does that save the life of someone who is driving on the same road at the same time, in an entirely legal and safe manner, in the event of an accident?? (Or a cyclist or a child playing in a garden, etc)

Garda : " I'm sorry madam, your child/partner is dead, but we have a picture of the other car and driver speeding approximately 50m from where your child/partner was hit."
Distraught Mother/Partner: " Oh that's great - you have their picture, and they'll get penalty points and a fine. That makes me feel better"

Such pathetic small minded thinking is pathetic and costs much more money in the long run, not to mention the loss of life.

We have spent money on far greater follies in this country (voting machines, Luas Studies for small towns, etc.
We are living in a low population density manner, road transport is the most popular and efficient means of transport in the country, It is high time we had road network that reflects that.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I doubt those deaths occurred at, say, 30 km/h.

Reducing speed will reduce risk, so it's a goal worth pursuing.

That's an irresponsibly stupid attitude. Inappropriate slow driving is a big cause in people adopting risky behaviour.

Confused.com published the results a survey last year

Research released today reveals that dawdling drivers are the top cause of irritation for UK drivers. The survey by car insurance experts Confused.com shows that over half (60%) of motorists experience an increase in stress levels and a heightened irritability when faced with a vehicle driving slower than the rest of the traffic.

In reaction to these slow drivers, almost half (45%) of motorists risk overtaking, thus increasing the chances of an accident. Research from the Department for Transport also reveals that 143 accidents a year are caused directly by slow drivers or “Sunday drivers,” as they are known.

With little to prevent drivers from travelling too slowly, half of British motorists are supporting the idea to introduce the first ever ‘slow speed camera’ to the roads of the UK. The slow speed camera will specifically catch slow motorists, penalising them with a fine for driving slower than the minimum designated speed limit. This has come as a reaction to the fact that although minimum speed limits are enforced on some UK motorways, there are few preventative measures that are used widely.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Someone suggested to me recently that the reason for the spike could have been all that rain in June. Plausible?

Plausible, but also more palatable than the alternatives. Without information on the road conditions at the time, it's about as much use as the opinion that the perceived drop in enforcement is responsible.

5. There is no evidence to the contrary. If you think there is, post the links here (scientific studies, not the Mail or Telegraph please). Or Mr Yates.[/QUOTE]

So ban studies that you don't like - well there is precident for that in science - but then if we listened to calls like that we'd never have found the Higgs-Boson.

Iwannahurl

Baldilocks wrote: »

Speed is very rarely the cause of an accident, it is a contributing factor to the severity of the accident.

If speed were the cause, then our motorways would be the most dangerous roads in the country, both in terms of numbers or accidents and the severity of the resulting accidents.



Let's take 2 known blackspots, (frequent locations for cameras) the N20 (Cork Limerick, between New Two Pothouse and Buttevant) and the N28 (Cork-Ringaskiddy at the top of the hill). The N20 links our 2nd and 3rd largest cities and that particular stretch of the road has been a disaster area for a long time (at least 30 years). The N28 takes traffic from the port of Ringaskiddy to Cork City and onwards, and for one section of approximately 1km, it is shocking - the crest of a hill, with several private homes that have blind exits onto a very busy national route (between our second largest city and it's port, the decidedly large pharma industry that is located in/around Ringaskiddy, and the town of Carrigaline (pop. 20k) . The arriving tourists and truckers might think it's quaint, but it's not. it's embarassing and dangerous, barely wide enough for 2 trucks.

Rather than fix the road in both cases, the powers that be have opted to take pictures of the 'bold/naughty' people and give them a fine and some penalty points. How does that save the life of someone who is driving on the same road at the same time, in an entirely legal and safe manner, in the event of an accident?? (Or a cyclist or a child playing in a garden, etc)



Garda : " I'm sorry madam, your child/partner is dead, but we have a picture of the other car and driver speeding approximately 50m from where your child/partner was hit."

Distraught Mother/Partner: " Oh that's great - you have their picture, and they'll get penalty points and a fine. That makes me feel better"



Such pathetic small minded thinking is pathetic and costs much more money in the long run, not to mention the loss of life.



We have spent money on far greater follies in this country (voting machines, Luas Studies for small towns, etc.

We are living in a low population density manner, road transport is the most popular and efficient means of transport in the country, It is high time we had road network that reflects that.

In any given system (eg a motorway) higher speed equates with higher risk, all other things being equal.

There are also other good reasons to limit speed on motorways, not just collision and crash severity risk.

There is nothing pathetic or small-minded about speed surveillance/enforcement. It's a proven road safety measure.

Public transport is a much safer mode of travel, so if we are very car-dependent in this country then speed surveillance is even more justified.

There are no valid comparisons to be made between speed cameras and the voting machine debacle.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

That's an irresponsibly stupid attitude. Inappropriate slow driving is a big cause in people adopting risky behaviour.

Confused.com published the results a survey last year

Plausible, but also more palatable than the alternatives. Without information on the road conditions at the time, it's about as much use as the opinion that the perceived drop in enforcement is responsible.

5. There is no evidence to the contrary. If you think there is, post the links here (scientific studies, not the Mail or Telegraph please). Or Mr Yates.

So ban studies that you don't like - well there is precident for that in science - but then if we listened to calls like that we'd never have found the Higgs-Boson.

Confused.com? The well-known and respected scientific journal?

Still waiting for links to authoritative sources demonstrating (a) that speed cameras make roads less safe and (b) that reducing speed makes roads less safe.

Physics & Chemistry forum>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=391