Busting the "3 km/h over the speed limit" myth

Iwannahurl

An Garda Siochana have released data showing that they issued 140,000 fixed charged notices for speeding between January and September of this year.

http://www.thejournal.ie/speeding-bank-holiday-weekend-1144159-Oct2013/

Of particular value, in my opinion, is the data showing the percentage of detections according to different levels of speeding.

A common myth, on Boards and elsewhere, is that hordes of motorists are being unfairly nabbed for being just a few km over the speed limit, thereby revealing the true purpose of speed surveillance, which is to extract as much extra revenue as possible from otherwise careful, considerate and hard-pressed motorists.

I'm not inclined to believe that story, and I think these stats show the real situation.

• 6% (8,237) of detections were of speeds 1-9 km/h above the speed limit in the zone.
• 80% of detections (111,044) were 10-29 km/h above the limit.
• 14% (19,302) detections were for speeds 30 km/h or more above the limit.

So that means 94% of speeding offences recorded by AGS are for speeds 10 km/h or more above the limit, ie 60+ in a 50 zone, 90+ in an 80 zone and so on.

Myth busted.

Red Kev

Riskymove

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Myth busted.

How so?

over 8,000 people done for being 1-9 km/h over the limit

Iwannahurl

Riskymove wrote: »

How so?

over 8,000 people done for being 1-9 km/h over the limit

What percentage is that?

The Bishop Basher

This doesn't negate the overwhelming evidence that suggests it is a revenue generating exercise in any way shape or form.

It's the locations of the traps that are the issue. Not the actual speeds people are fined for.

listermint

Swanner wrote: »

This doesn't negate the overwhelming evidence that suggests it is a revenue generating exercise in any way shape or form.

It's the locations of the traps that are the issue. Not the actual speeds people are fined for.

And the speeds at particular locations, many nonsensical with the flow of traffic.

dnme

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What percentage is that?

6%

Riskymove

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What percentage is that?

sure whats that got to do with it..they are still being done...over 8,000 in 9 months

tbh I think you are misinterpreting the "myths" out there

In my experience the common complaints are:

1. People are done for being slightly over the limit
2. Speed traps are set in places where speeding is not as risky (i.e. dual carrraigeway etc and not back roads)

I have never seen anyone claim that the majority of tickets are for people only doing slightly over a limit or that people driving way over limits are not done for it

I do not see anything in the stats to dispel either.

although, in any event, people complaining about 1 or 2 are generally just fed up as they were done and trying to justify themselves breaking the law

Bigcheeze

Is there a stat for the percentage of speeding fines issued on non-residential dual carriageways with 60kmh limits ?

Gary ITR

That's not a common myth at all. 8000 people is a high enough number.

Also anybody that has sat a driving test in Ireland will tell you you're thought to slightly exceed the limit. I was told to drive at about 33mph (55kph)

wonski

Gary ITR wrote: »

That's not a common myth at all. 8000 people is a high enough number.

Also anybody that has sat a driving test in Ireland will tell you you're thought to slightly exceed the limit. I was told to drive at about 33mph (55kph)

It is an indicated speed, and it usually is little lower anyway.
8000 isn't a margin, agreed. But it is 1-9km/h, so we don't know the numbers for 1-3 km/h...

Voodoomelon

I think the bigger myth that has been busted here is that the speedcameras allow 5-10% error margin. If people are being caught at 1kph over the limit, this is the more interesting finding.

djimi

Id be interested to see how that 1-9km/h breaks down. You wont be done for being a couple of km/h over the limit, and in reality, given the inaccuracies on most speedos, if you are really say 5km/h over the limit then chances are your speedo is more likely showing 10km/h over, and that being the case you really cant have any cause for complaint.

Valetta

Anyone who gets done for being more than 10 km/h over the limit deserves it for nothing more than being an idiot and not paying attention, regardless of where the trap is.

Therefore, in my opinion 94% of fines are deserved.

Henry Ford III

Depends totally on how the authorities view the limit. My info. (and it's good) suggests a small bit of discretion is allowed.

Anan1

Speed traps in this country could better be described as 'not looking where you're going traps' - you can speed away, as long as you keep your eyes open.

djimi

Gary ITR wrote: »

Also anybody that has sat a driving test in Ireland will tell you you're thought to slightly exceed the limit. I was told to drive at about 33mph (55kph)

I was never told any such thing when I was learning to drive!

Iwannahurl

Swanner wrote: »

This doesn't negate the overwhelming evidence that suggests it is a revenue generating exercise in any way shape or form.

It's the locations of the traps that are the issue. Not the actual speeds people are fined for.

Data = evidence, as per the Garda stats quoted above.

What "overwhelming evidence" are you referring to? Facts please, not opinion, supposition, assumptions or other unsubstantiated claims.

Riskymove wrote: »

People are done for being slightly over the limit

How would you define "slightly"?

Gary ITR wrote: »

That's not a common myth at all. 8000 people is a high enough number.

Also anybody that has sat a driving test in Ireland will tell you you're thought to slightly exceed the limit. I was told to drive at about 33mph (55kph)

It's a question of proportion. Six percent are up to 9 km/h over the limit, while 94% are 10 km/h or more over.

Can you point to any RSA guidelines / ADI documentation which instructs learners to drive at 5 km/h over the default urban limit? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but if it does I want to get a hold of it.

wonski

djimi wrote: »

I was never told any such thing when I was learning to drive!

It is good for the test to go slightly, very slightly over the limit when safe. Long wide stretch of the road and they prefer you go 55 rather than 45. Wouldn't call it speeding as 55 on speedo is very likely just 50km/h.
Was told the same, and it is to show good progress apparently...

wonski

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can you point to any RSA guidelines / ADI documentation which instructs learners to drive at 5 km/h over the default urban limit? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but if it does I want to get a hold of it.

I doubt it is written in any book;)

pippip

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I think the bigger myth that has been busted here is that the speedcameras allow 5-10% error margin. If people are being caught at 1kph over the limit, this is the more interesting finding.

There's more to this bit I'd say. Out of the 8k in this group I'd say they are all between 5-9kph. I'd say its more to do with that they cannot have the stats showing they have any tolerance above the official limit.

The fact that nobody on here in the years and years this has been discussed has ever been able to produce a photo of a ticket showing prosecution speaks for itself.

Iwannahurl

wonski wrote: »

I doubt it is written in any book;)

Maverick instructors perhaps, giving 'off-label' advice?

djimi

wonski wrote: »

It is good for the test to go slightly, very slightly over the limit when safe. Long wide stretch of the road and they prefer you go 55 rather than 45. Wouldn't call it speeding as 55 on speedo is very likely just 50km/h.
Was told the same, and it is to show good progress apparently...

When I did my test I was told that speeding would be a more or less instant fail. Given that the tester doesnt have access to the "real" speed, and can only use the speedo as a guide, Id say it would be pretty moronic to be seen to be exceeding the speed limit during a driving test.

Not that it makes a blind bit of difference anyway; you are hardly impeding the progress of other road users by driving to the speed limits as per your speedo (assuming your speedo isnt completely shagged and its reading "normal" speeds). Anyone who thinks that you should be driving a few km/h over the limit according to your speedo so as to be driving at the "true" limit really needs to sit down and take a long hard look at themselves, and ask themselves is that extra couple of km/h really worth getting worked about.

Riskymove

Iwannahurl wrote: »

How would you define "slightly"?

well its not my complaint but I think people who do complain are talking about maybe up to 4 or 5 km/h over the limit

It's a question of proportion.

well, as I said I disagree...I am not aware of any general complaint that a large proportion of speeding tickets are for only being a small bit over the limit

Six percent are up to 9 km/h over the limit, while 94% are 10 km/h or more over.

yes...but....most of the 6% might be between 1-3 or 7-9 we don't know

likewise most of the 94% could be between 10-12 for all we know


but anyway, the proportion is not the issue people raise but the location and circumstance of being done

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but if it does I want to get a hold of it.

well, I'll say it...it doesn't exist

Zambia

wonski wrote: »

It is an indicated speed, and it usually is little lower anyway.
8000 isn't a margin, agreed. But it is 1-9km/h, so we don't know the numbers for 1-3 km/h...

I doubt anyone has ever been done for actually 1-2 kph over. Maybe for an estimated speed of that as the vehicle was detected at a higher speed and a margin of error was accounted for.

Has anyone got a ticket for doing actually 61 in a 60?

Riskymove

pippip wrote: »

There's more to this bit I'd say. Out of the 8k in this group I'd say they are all between 5-9kph. I'd say its more to do with that they cannot have the stats showing they have any tolerance above the official limit.

The fact that nobody on here in the years and years this has been discussed has ever been able to produce a photo of a ticket showing prosecution speaks for itself.

it is also worth noting that the second badn is twice as wide as the first

why not 1-9, 10-19 and 20-29..etc....

you can easily spin such stats

pippip

Riskymove wrote: »

it is also worth noting that the second badn is twice as wide as the first

why not 1-9, 10-19 and 20-29..etc....

you can easily spin such stats

Exactly, if they wanted to they could just have easily shown the public offences for every single kph over the limit. Its all computer data at the end of the day.

Its just what they want us to see.

Gary ITR

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Maverick instructors perhaps, giving 'off-label' advice?

Sticking exactly to the speed limit in a test will lead to marks for failing to progress (when I did my test 9 years ago anyway)

The biggest misconception here us that speedos are wildly inaccurate. They really aren't far off the money when at a constant speed and nowhere near 10% off anyway.

djimi

Riskymove wrote: »

yes...but....most of the 6% might be between 1-3 or 7-9 we don't know

I would lay money that the majority, if not all, of those 8000 were in excess of 6km/h over the limit.

wonski

djimi wrote: »

When I did my test I was told that speeding would be a more or less instant fail. Given that the tester doesnt have access to the "real" speed, and can only use the speedo as a guide, Id say it would be pretty moronic to be seen to be exceeding the speed limit during a driving test.

Not that it makes a blind bit of difference anyway; you are hardly impeding the progress of other road users by driving to the speed limits as per your speedo (assuming your speedo isnt completely shagged and its reading "normal" speeds). Anyone who thinks that you should be driving a few km/h over the limit according to your speedo so as to be driving at the "true" limit really needs to sit down and take a long hard look at themselves, and ask themselves is that extra couple of km/h really worth getting worked about.

I was just following instructor's advice. Granted that each of them have different idea of what to change / improve...
I passed anyway, and didn't watch the needle on the speedo. Maybe they are just trying to teach people not to watch the speedo all the time when driving, and rather drive. Some drivers are getting too nervous about the speed on the test day and thid may be good advice to some.
I agree it is weird to ask people to get a little over the limit, but it wasn't my idea. And I definitely don't give such an advice here.

djimi

Gary ITR wrote: »

Sticking exactly to the speed limit in a test will lead to marks for failing to progress (when I did my test 9 years ago anyway)

The biggest misconception here us that speedos are wildly inaccurate. They really aren't far off the money when at a constant speed and nowhere near 10% off anyway.

Seriously, what instructor was feeding you that nonsense? Sticking to the speed limit will fail you your driving test? Come off it...

Riskymove

djimi wrote: »

I would lay money that the majority, if not all, of those 8000 were in excess of 6km/h over the limit.

and maybe you'd be right

but the stats don't answer it for us

aisr1ofk43dpy5

Is there any evidence of deaths caused by drivers been 1 to 9 kmph over the limit. The real killer is stupid and dangerous overtaking but this will never be caught on camera.

wonski

Kassidy Shrilling Overlap wrote: »

Is there any evidence of deaths caused by drivers been 1 to 9 kmph over the limit. The real killer is stupid and dangerous overtaking but this will never be caught on camera.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. If you let people go 9 km/h over, then they would complain they were done for another 1-2 over that limit.
Rules are simple, never heard of someone caught doing 61km/h in 60 zone. Not saying it doesn't happen, but never heard of this.

Riskymove

wonski wrote: »

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

this gets to the heart of the actual complaints people make

at the end of the day people know they were over the limit be it 2km/h or 9 km/h

what seems to annoy people (other than that they were caught;)) is the view that they were done in particular circumstances - e.g. good weather, dual carraigeway, little other traffic etc

while there does not seem to be any similar efforts to police back roads or really dangerous driving etc.

this may or may not be accurate but I think its the common complaint imo

SpaceTime

They need more speed traps on narrow single carriage way N-Routes.

I regularly see them on motorway but rarely on those kinds of routes.

Iwannahurl

pippip wrote: »

There's more to this bit I'd say. Out of the 8k in this group I'd say they are all between 5-9kph. I'd say its more to do with that they cannot have the stats showing they have any tolerance above the official limit.

The fact that nobody on here in the years and years this has been discussed has ever been able to produce a photo of a ticket showing prosecution speaks for itself.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the 1-9 category (n = 8237) can be divided into three sub-categories, with an equal number of detections in each.

That would give us 2745 (2%) detections in each of the three sub-categories of 1-3, 4-6 and 7-9 km/h over the limit.

While it can be argued that 1-6 km/h above the limit in any zone is a very minor offence, 4% is still a minuscule proportion compared to the 94% doing 10 km/h or more above the limit.

Riskymove

Iwannahurl wrote: »

While it can be argued that 1-6 km/h above the limit in any zone is a very minor offence, 4% is still a minuscule proportion compared to the 94% doing 10 km/h or more above the limit.

you remain fixated on this point

the proportion does nothing to dispel the "myth" you talk about

the only thing that will do that is if we see how many are done for , let's say 1-5km/h

then we'll know the truth of it

Iwannahurl

Riskymove wrote: »

it is also worth noting that the second badn is twice as wide as the first

why not 1-9, 10-19 and 20-29..etc....

you can easily spin such stats

Journal.ie will have received all the stats, including graphs, with the Garda press release.

aisr1ofk43dpy5

I understand there has to be a line drawn and anything that makes us think and slow down is a good thing. Having said that i know stretches of road where really stupid overtaking goes on because the drivers know they are about to enter a speed van area and are attempting to make time while they can. I also know a 15 mile stretch of road between two towns where theres been many accidents and fatalities which is not a speed van area but where the road widens and becomes a 60kmph as you near one of the towns it becomes a speed van area. The like of this is what makes people dubious about the whole thing.

Iwannahurl

Riskymove wrote: »

you remain fixated on this point

the proportion does nothing to dispel the "myth" you talk about

the only thing that will do that is if we see how many are done for , let's say 1-5km/h

then we'll know the truth of it

It can't be more than six out of every hundred detections, and is most likely a lot less.

No amount of rejigging the numbers will change that.

EDIT: I can now say with absolute certainty that the Garda figures will show all 6% to be in the 5-9 category.

Riskymove

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Journal.ie will have received all the stats, including graphs, with the Garda press release.

thanks I had a look at the press release and its interesting alright

someone doing 109km/h down the Quays in Dublin City Centre??:eek:

Riskymove

Iwannahurl wrote: »

EDIT: I can now say with absolute certainty that the Garda figures will show all 6% to be in the 5-9 category.

well then that will dispel your myth alright

The Bishop Basher

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Data = evidence, as per the Garda stats quoted above.

What "overwhelming evidence" are you referring to? Facts please, not opinion, supposition, assumptions or other unsubstantiated claims.

So are you saying the speed trap locations have nothing to do with revenue generation as opposed to saving lives ?

Well here's a couple of obvious examples i can think of in my area....accident data is from the RSA...

The R118 between the M50 and the CWD roundabout. Go safe vans are regularly parked on both sides of the road and a traffic cop on a motorcycle is often parked up by the roundabout catching people heading down towards CWD. The speed limit is 60kph. There have been no serious incidents or fatalities however the Wyatville Road has had both. I have yet to see a go safe van on the Wyatville road and I drive it every day.

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Cherryw...87.76,,0,-0.47

The southern Cross Rd in Bray. Speed limit is 80kph. Again, a GoSafe van is regularly parked on the east bound side and AGS are often hidden in an entrance to an estate on the Eastern end of the road. Again no serious incidents or fatalities here however unfortunately both have occurred on surrounding roads.

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Cherryw...7,,0,7.05&z=12

Interslice

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the 1-9 category (n = 8237) can be divided into three sub-categories, with an equal number of detections in each.

That would give us 2745 (2%) detections in each of the three sub-categories of 1-3, 4-6 and 7-9 km/h over the limit.

While it can be argued that 1-6 km/h above the limit in any zone is a very minor offence, 4% is still a minuscule proportion compared to the 94% doing 10 km/h or more above the limit.

Ah heyor. If 100% of irish people are under 8 foot tall and you apply your methods that meams 20% are over 6.4 foot tall. Get up out of it. You've busted nothing.

Atomic Pineapple

djimi wrote: »

Seriously, what instructor was feeding you that nonsense? Sticking to the speed limit will fail you your driving test? Come off it...

I too was told this but I done my test just over 10 years ago, back when there was a bit of common sense used, if it was safe to do so you could break the speed limit and you would get docked marks if you failed to progress.

This is because I was taught to drive to the conditions at the time, a single static speed limit cannot govern a dynamically changing road let alone when adding in dynamically changing weather, traffic and surface condition, so you were tested on your ability to slow down when the conditions required you to do so and speed up when they allowed you to.

Iwannahurl

Swanner wrote: »

So are you saying the speed trap locations have nothing to do with revenue generation as opposed to saving lives ?

I'm saying you have no such "overwhelming evidence".

Padraig Mor

The usual twisted logic from IWH, distorting reality to suit his (her?) agenda.

I don't believe it's a particularly common belief that hordes of motorists are being 'done' for being marginally over the limit. In fact, a quick glance over the many previous threads will show you the common belief in Motors that you can be quite a bit over the limit before a Garda will issue a penalty. The Boards 'speeding rule of thumb' for 120 k/h sections of road is that you won't be stopped by a Garda up to 140 k/h; you'll get the standard penalty for 140 - 160, and you'll be hammered for being over 160. All subject to variation of course; there have been a number of cases described where people were only given the standard penalty for speeds of 180+ k/h where the Garda felt that that speed did not constitute dangerous driving under the circumstances at the time. There is less room for discretion with the Go Safe vans (obviously) but I am aware of unpublished guidelines allowing motorists be circa 10% over the limit before receiving a penalty.

The main beliefs I've come across in Boards re speed checks are as follows.

1. They are a revenue generator. Personally, I don't believe this. AFAIK they are actually loss making, all considered.

2. They are not located where they need to be, instead targetted at "fish in a barrel" locations. While many black spots are inherently unsafe to set up a speed trap at, it certainly seems that many speed traps are placed where numbers can be clocked up easily.

3. Speed traps do not represent a holistic approach to road safety. They are a quick fix, easy option to make it look like something is being done. The obsession in many quarters with 'speeding' promotes the belief that driving below the limit is the only necessity for safe driving. This is manifestly untrue. True road safety requires the enforcement of ALL laws equally, not those which are simply easy. I, and many others here I'm sure, have no objection to speed traps. What I object to is the notion that they represent a comprehensive approach to road safety.

4. The RSA, Gardai, media, and certain other obsessives repeatedly misrepresent, distort, and outright lie about road safety data. Driving in excess of the speed limit is the primary cause of only a tiny fraction of our road deaths, yet the data is misrepresented as showing speeding is one of the primary causes of deaths on our roads. It's not; it's the least of our worries TBH.

endacl

I was one of those caught at 63kph in a 60kph zone. I was only speeding a bit, but I was speeding. Fair cop, no whinge. Paid the fine and the points will be gone in a few more months. What's this thread about?

The Bishop Basher

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm saying you have no such "overwhelming evidence".

I posted evidence above but it's clear that you'll just discount or ignore anything that doesn't tie in with your myth busting agenda.

I'll leave you at it.

Riskymove

endacl wrote: »

I was one of those caught at 63kph in a 60kph zone. I was only speeding a bit, but I was speeding. Fair cop, no whinge. Paid the fine and the points will be gone in a few more months. What's this thread about?

that what you claim, did not infact happen

therefore you are lying:pac: