nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Child Item

Comments

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

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The well-known and respected scientific journal?

you should really pick your sources better than an organisation that encourages procedures like symphysiotomy as " innovative solutions"

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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

What, you don't know that Higgs was ridiculed for his idea in the 60's?

mitosis

Dublin to Inishowen on Friday, the reverse on Saturday. Saw not a single speed check. Was it a bluff?

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

you should really pick your sources better than an organisation that encourages procedures like symphysiotomy as " innovative solutions"

What, you don't know that Higgs was ridiculed for his idea in the 60's?

Conspiracy Theories this way>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

The WHO also make exaggerated claims re cycle helmets, BTW. That's one for the Cycling forum though.

The WHO link was re the "safe systems" approach. I already cited Rune Elvik. I suggest you read this: http://www.trg.dk/elvik/740-2004.pdf

In that report Elvik also deals with the issue of speed variance (ie slow drivers versus fast ones) and the alleged risks involved. See also Davis 2002.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Conspiracy Theories this way>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

The WHO link was re the "safe systems" approach. I already cited Rune Elvik. I suggest you read this: http://www.trg.dk/elvik/740-2004.pdf

In that report Elvik also deals with the issue of speed variance (ie slow drivers versus fast ones) and the alleged risks involved. See also Davis 2002.

mv /usr/iwannahurl/* /forum/ct/

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The WHO also make exaggerated claims re cycle helmets, BTW. That's one for the Cycling forum though.

As someone who's helmet prevented their brains from being splattered all over the road after being knocked off a bike I think that they should be compulsory.

Baldilocks

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.

You've not really answered any questions there (are you a politician??)

What are these 'other reasons' to impose speed limits on motorways.

Traffic law surveillance is undoubtedly an effective method of enforcing the law. But it is not the best response to deal with the repeated accidents and loss of life at known accident blackspots. Engineering solutions will be far more effective - median barriers to prevent head-on collisions, passing lanes, and road straightening, will actually prevent accidents all the time, not just when the garda or go-safe vehicle are there.

It is unreasonable to think we can provide Public transport to every home in the country - let alone frequent public transport. The Dingle underground will never happen, nor will the Limerick Luas, Clifden will not have bus every 30 minutes to Galway, so personal transport is going to be with us for quite some time to come. The road network connecting places to places other than Dublin is not suitable for purpose, it is costing the nation millions in euros, time and LIVES.

You're right, the comparison between voting machines and speed cameras is invalid. Eventually E-voting will happen, speed cameras will never prevent ALL speeding. One is badly executed example of a good idea, the other is a well executed example of a bad idea.

Iwannahurl

antoobrien wrote: »

mv /usr/iwannahurl/* /forum/ct/

As someone who's helmet prevented their brains from being splattered all over the road after being knocked off a bike I think that they should be compulsory.

So you've had a nasty knock on the head then?

I'm sure compulsory helmets will do a lot to prevent cyclists being killed or injured by all those dangerous slow drivers and the few really fast ones.

Andy Magic

The ad at the bottom of this thread has made me laugh!

13152781007596560836

Iwannahurl

Baldilocks wrote: »

1. You've not really answered any questions there (are you a politician??)

2. What are these 'other reasons' to impose speed limits on motorways.

3. Traffic law surveillance is undoubtedly an effective method of enforcing the law. But it is not the best response to deal with the repeated accidents and loss of life at known accident blackspots. Engineering solutions will be far more effective - median barriers to prevent head-on collisions, passing lanes, and road straightening, will actually prevent accidents all the time, not just when the garda or go-safe vehicle are there.

4. You're right, the comparison between voting machines and speed cameras is invalid. Eventually E-voting will happen, speed cameras will never prevent ALL speeding. One is badly executed example of a good idea, the other is a well executed example of a bad idea.

1. What questions?

2. Fuel consumption. CO2 and other emissions. Congestion in certain circumstances.

3. Agreed. Enforcement, engineering and education are all necessary.

4. Evidence please.

antoobrien

Iwannahurl wrote: »

So you've had a nasty knock on the head then?

Did you read what I typed at all? It means that my head never came in contact with the surface of the road, ego no knock on the head as the helmet took the impact. A minor concussion (the impact was roughly equivalent to getting a smack with a hurl from an over-enthusiastic full/center back-not nice if you've ever had it happen to you) and a bit frazzled for a while.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm sure compulsory helmets will do a lot to prevent cyclists being killed or injured by all those dangerous slow drivers and the few really fast ones.

Let me put it this way to you: I'd say that if the circumstances were repeated sans helmet, I'd be one more road death statistic for you to beat the world over. Only, since in reality I survived the accident, it'd be the ridiculous notion that cyclists shouldn't wear helmets that would be the real cause of death.

Victor Meldrew

Baldilocks wrote: »

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

Let's take 2 known blackspots,..... 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 ....

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.

I think it is fair to say that an obstructed view of the road is one of the biggest causes of accidents, and the only solution OTHER than re-engineering roads or removing driveways / minor roads from crests is what are seemingly Draconian speed restrictions appropriate for blind crests.

Child Item