Go Metric: Go Safe and other oxymoronic statements

magpie

Does anyone here understand the corrolation between going metric and increased road safety? Apparently €2.5 million is being spent to ram this oxymoronic mantra down our throats, along with 'Check the signs: Check your speed'. Who is the advertising genius behind these?

Here's a new one I thought up this morning on my way into work:

'Stare at the dash: Until you crash'

lomb

i tend to agree with that. waste of 22 million euro. could have been spent improving roads and saving lifes.

pork99

Or those ads which warn you to be careful driving across the border because the signs will still be in MPH up there.

If we were land linked to France or Germany I could see the point in switching to KPH but given that we link to an MPH country I see this as another piece of evidence that our Govt. has "special needs".

MrPudding

magpie wrote:

Here's a new one I thought up this morning on my way into work:

'Stare at the dash: Until you crash'

There are 4 speed limits. Is there no chance you could "learn" them rather than staring at you dash?

MrP

lomb

MrPudding wrote:

There are 4 speed limits. Is there no chance you could "learn" them rather than staring at you dash?

MrP

but why should we? give me one good reason to change the status quo. and dont say it is to standardise distance. they could just as cheaply or cheaper to change distance signs.

maxheadroom

lomb wrote:

but why should we? give me one good reason to change the status quo. and dont say it is to standardise distance. they could just as cheaply or cheaper to change distance signs.

They already did change distance signs. To the metric system. It took years. Now they're completing the job.

Do you honestly believe it would be cheaper to replace every distance sign in the country than to change every speed limit sign in the country? Distance signs are generally bigger, and there's more of them. They also have to be customised for each location, whereas a 60km/h sign can be mass produced and stuck up where necessary.

lomb

honestly think it was an error to put up distance signs in km. they should have duel signed them in miles.
its the liam lalwors and charlie haugheys of the world to blame never took a stand and lined there own pockets.

seamus

lomb wrote:

but why should we? give me one good reason to change the status quo. and dont say it is to standardise distance. they could just as cheaply or cheaper to change distance signs.

The purpose of metrification is easy calculation. Simple as that. A change back to MPH would be a step backwards.

weehamster

People, who really cares.

In a month or so it will be part of everyday life and you wont even notice it anymore. It’s done. So just get on with it and worry about far more important like obeying the basic rules of the road.

BrianD

... just like we though we would not survive without our plastic bags!!

BTW the reason they say safety will be improved is that speed limits will be reduced on 90% or so of roads. In theory people will be travelling slower.

laoisfan

personally speaking, i think it is a good idea that we went metric...brings us into line with the rest of mainland europe.

question: when are we going to switch to driving on the other side of the road?

--laoisfan

jhegarty

BrianD wrote:

... just like we though we would not survive without our plastic bags!!

BTW the reason they say safety will be improved is that speed limits will be reduced on 90% or so of roads. In theory people will be travelling slower.

people who speed cause accidents
people who speed break the speed limit
people who speed don't care what the speed limit is
so we will save lives because people who speed, and don't look at the speed limit , will slow down on country roads that hasn't seen a garda with a speed gun since 1985 ?

irlirishkev

Once again, a whole load of big talk and worry over something that will pass relatively easy.

The euro changeover..
The plastic bag levy..

We'll get used to it. We'll learn what the equivilant speed limit in miles is.
I had a Japanese Import up untill recently, and I had to convert the other way the whole time. It's not that big a deal. Us Irish just like to moan..

K.

PS - Those people who knowingly speed, or use the changover as an excuse to speed, are scum. And this particular breed of scum will always speed.. it doesn't matter how the speed limits are displayed.

Calina

I fail to see the sense in dual-measurement distance signs. But then, I've been living with kilometre signs since I was about 10 anyway...

In any case, regardless of whether they are in miles or kilometres, you should know the speeds anyway. That comes under the heading of being a competent driver.

BrianD

All we have to do now is to get the media to stop talking about how much a gallon of petrol is going up/down by? When was the last time anybody bought a gallon of petrol??? I have no idea what one is.

magpie

There are 4 speed limits. Is there no chance you could "learn" them rather than staring at you dash?

MrP

Actually, on a road like N7 there are probably 4 speed limits within a 1 mil.. I mean Kilometre stretch.

Before the red Cow roundabout: 50kmph
After the roundabout: 60kmph (except it's still marked 40mph)
At start of dual carriageway: 100kmph
going under bridge on dual carriageway: 60kmph
After bridge on dual carriageway: 100kmph
then, for no apparent reason 60kmph (that's 38 mph imperial fans) all the way to Naas.

If you're not staring at the bloody signs you are in danger of being done for speeding, which as everyone knows is a crime tantamount to mutilating babies.

Just a shame that these new seemingly random speed limits do nothing to address road safety and merely criminalise all road users. On my way in to work today not 1 driver was obeying these speed limits. I attempted to for about 2 minutes and to be frank almost caused an accident due to people honking, overtaking, undertaking etc.

Incidentally, nobody has managed to explain "Go metric: Go safe" to me yet. Presumably Brian wants people to stop talking about gallons as they are more dangerous than litres.

DubTony

BrianD wrote:

All we have to do now is to get the media to stop talking about how much a gallon of petrol is going up/down by? When was the last time anybody bought a gallon of petrol??? I have no idea what one is.

Hi Brian,

A gallon is 8 pints...or 4.54 litres. Unless you're in the USA where they have a smaller gallon, and they use things called fluid ounces and quarts. Buy they sell petrol in gallons. I bought a few gallons in Florida a couple of months back.

Tony

seamus

magpie wrote:

Incidentally, nobody has managed to explain "Go metric: Go safe" to me yet.

It's a very poor slogan. Obviously the intention is to say "Please be safe by observing the correct speed measurements when the changeover occurs". Instead it implies that metric is somehow safer...

sceptre

lomb wrote:

they should have duel signed them in miles.

Why?

magpie

Obviously the intention is to say "Please be safe by observing the correct speed measurements when the changeover occurs". Instead it implies that metric is somehow safer...

Either that or its a cynical attempt by the government to dupe the hard of thinking into believing that metric=safe and to play off the money wasted on this as being in some way related to road safety. Which it isn't.

If the government actually cared about road safety they would improve the roads, rather than constantly trying to shift the blame onto road users.

This site is quite informative http://www.irishlimits.com/hardpoints.htm

weehamster

magpie wrote:

Either that or its a cynical attempt by the government to dupe the hard of thinking into believing that metric=safe and to play off the money wasted on this as being in some way related to road safety. Which it isn't.

If the government actually cared about road safety they would improve the roads, rather than constantly trying to shift the blame onto road users.

Yes the slogan is stupid and it may seem a waist of money to a few but its just being sensible and harmonising the measuring system so that there is only one instead of two.

As for safety, are you saying that it is the Governments fault that people break the speed limit and other basic rules of the road. And if the roads aren’t safe then why do people treat them as if it’s a racetrack?

As for road improvements, I thought the government is improving the roads or is the billions of euros given to the NRA just to pay salaries.

magpie

As for safety, are you saying that it is the Governments fault that people break the speed limit and other basic rules of the road. And if the roads aren’t safe then why do people treat them as if it’s a racetrack?

As for road improvements, I thought the government is improving the roads or is the billions of euros given to the NRA just to pay salaries.

The problem is that road speeds are inappropriately marked / regulated.

On brand spanking new 3 lane roads there are nonsensical 60 km/ph speed limits, while on potholed country lanes there are 80 km/ph speed limits. Meanwhile the gardai spend their time enforcing speed on what are statistically the safest roads (dual carriageways and motorways) while ignoring the country roads where the real carnage is happening.

This leads me to believe that the Gardai are merely filling quotas in the easiest way possible in order to make it appear they are waging war on dangerous driving, when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.

The Government's responsibility comes in its blithe use of multi-million euro advertising campaigns to tell you how metrification is actually contributing to road safety instead of spending the money on, say, driver education programmes.

Bluehair

magpie wrote:

the gardai spend their time enforcing speed on what are statistically the safest roads (dual carriageways and motorways) while ignoring the country roads where the real carnage is happening.

This is imho the core of the problem in Ireland, I have no problem with real enforcement of traffic laws but constantly see dangerous driving in areas the Gardai never seem to be.

MrPudding

A couple of points.



Firstly, is it possible that there are no speed checks on crappy country road cos it would be dangerous? I am not being sarcastic here, I am asking for opinion. I personally think it would be very dangerous for the peelers to set up speed checks on roads where there is barely enough room for to cars to pass each other. I reckon that someone that speed on the crappy roads will also speed on the good road so maybe it all balances out. And before anyone mentions it I realize that the limits on some road are inappropriately slow. Two point on this 1) It’s not an excuse fro speeding & 2) I think the legislation that has been brought in will allow the local authorities to look at and change these limits.



The next point I want to make is on the safety of the roads. By this I presume you mean from an engineering point of view? Studies have shown that as engineers make roads safer people drive on them faster. There seems to be an acceptable amount of risk that drivers will take. When a road become safer they will increase speed as there is now a larger margin of safety. I saw this on an Equinox programme on car crashes. I don’t have time at the moment but I will find some references over the weekend, unless someone beats me to it.



I don’t think the slogan is meant to imply that metric = safe. I think it simply suggests that you should try to be safe.



I have to say I don’t really see what all the fuss is about. I have always found it silly that distance signs changes but not speed. I prefer using metric measures. Children are being taught metric, pretty much all new drivers will have been taught metric in school. Whether or not you agree with it the country is obligated to move to metric.



My final point. Why do so many people in this country seem to think that any time they break the law it is someone else’s fault?



-You ran a red light. Excuse: That is because the traffic is bad because some politicians took bribes in the 80’s.

-You broke the speed limit. Excuse: That is cos I think it is stupid, probably set because of some corrupt politician.



How about taking responsibility for your own actions every once in a while instead of always trying to blame someone or something else.



MrP

magpie

How about taking responsibility for your own actions every once in a while instead of always trying to blame someone or something else.

I notice you've conveniently ignored my point about multiple speed limits on single stretches of road, but have as a result dropped the 'just learn the limits dummy' argument you so eloquently put forward before.

Now you're resorting to that old reliable sanctimonious argument that you should 'just obey the speed limits'.

Clearly you either a) live in denial, b) do not drive or c) honestly believe that every driver who goes above 30mph in a built up area is a 'criminal' and should be punished. Incidentally, this is all drivers without exception in my experience.

Why do so many people in this country seem to think that any time they break the law it is someone else’s fault?

Surely you can acknowledge that there is a problem whereby the vast majority of road users are criminalised without there being any corresponding reduction in road fatalities?

Do you believe that the law is infallible?

I reckon that someone that speed on the crappy roads will also speed on the good road so maybe it all balances out.

Yes, karma-based speeding tickets. What a brilliant idea. Let me know any of your other stunning insights into how the system 'all works out in the end'


Meanwhile, back in reality, I'd welcome your comments on this http://www.irishlimits.com/hardpoints.htm, especially the statistics from the NRA and the information regarding the Cambridgeshire Police's decision to publish locations of speed traps to actually reduce speeds.

Some interesting points here also http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/01/18/story411670553.asp

according to the NRA, in 80 per cent of all fatal twovehicle collisions no one was speeding.

Even more astounding, a large proportion of speed traps and cameras are on dual carriageways and motorways. But according to the NRA, a minuscule 0.3 per cent of fatal ac cidents oc cur on these roads.Some 86 per cent of fatal crashes happen on single carriageway roads.

The problem for the government is that drivers are not stupid.They have a fair idea what is really causing accidents, because they often witness that sort of dangerous driving.The NRA knows too; it reports that when cars collide and people die, "improper overtaking" or "went to wrong side of road" was responsible far more than any other factor.

And so when a motorist in low-accident Dublin does 45 miles an hour on a dual carriageway where the speed limit is 40, and gets a heavy fine and two points on the licence, he or she is absolutely correct in considering that what has happened is unfair, and perfectly right to feel resentful.

And

In Ireland, gardai are under huge pressure to be seen to be doing something about road deaths. The force also sees itself as being seriously underresourced at the moment.

Local super intendents could devote the massive manpower required to trawl the single-carriageway roads of Ireland at the most dangerous times and days - between 9pm and 3am on Sundays and Mondays - filming the evidence of dangerous driving. We know from the figures that such an approach would put
genuinely dangerous drivers off the road.

Or they can send a few men andwomenouttothe straightest, safest stretch of dual carriageway in the area, at a more convenient time and day, and quickly nab dozens of speeders.We know from the figures that this is highly unlikely to have any effect on road deaths,but will appear very industrious indeed.

Does this sound familiar Mr P?

Any public objections to this will be met with the standard shrill response of the road safety lobby: Speed kills, anyone who questions this is irresponsible, and the penalty points are working because road deaths are falling.

MrPudding

magpie wrote:

I notice you've conveniently ignored my point about multiple speed limits on single stretches of road, but have as a result dropped the 'just learn the limits dummy' argument you so eloquently put forward before.

Don't have timejust yet to read the whole post. I will later. I just want to address this point. I was not suggesting that you learn all the speed limits. That would be stupid. I was suggesting that you learn what each new speed limit is in MPH. I suggested this as you seemed to be suggesting that the change would cause people to be confused and have to keep looking at their speedo in a way they would not have to were the signs still in MPH.

I will get to the rest of your post later. I don't have time right now.

MrP

BrianD3

I've been doing a lot of driving the last couple of days and have to say that the 60 km/h limit on certain fairly decent roads is feckin painfully slow. Feels quite a bit slower than the old 40 mph limit.

Also, I'm going to murder someone with a wheelbrace next time I hear that moronic "check the signs, check your speed" Was driving on the M50 today and I didn't see a single speed limit sign between the toll bridge and the M1 yet passed at least 3 notices telling me to "check the signs..." :mad:

BrianD3

BrianD

Magpie, it is all very simple. You learn and observe the speed limits. Multiple speed limits on a strech of road are not unusual in other countries. How come they can do it there?

And yes speed does kill and there is no such thing as safe speeding. Speeding is dangerous driving. 80% of two car collisions may be caused by other factors but this implies that 20% are caused by speeding. This is a significant number of incidents and justifys the current policies on speeding.

I do agree that enforcement is lazy and patchy at best. However, if you are caught you are speeding and really the location is irrelevant. Furthermore, the average motorist does not possess the knowledge or expertise to decide if a particular speed limit is appropriate to a particular road.

magpie

this implies that 20% are caused by speeding. This is a significant number of incidents and justifys the current policies on speeding.

And of this 20% what percentage occur on dual carriageways or motorways? And what % occur in Dublin? Have a look at the NRA statistics on any of the links I've posted up before. The % is miniscule, yet the vast majority of speeding fines are handed out in urban dual carriageway locations.

the average motorist does not possess the knowledge or expertise to decide if a particular speed limit is appropriate to a particular road.

Which is why you might have hoped that the government would actually seek expert advice on this, rather than operating a knee-jerk 'make everything slower' policy.

Victor

according to the NRA, in 80 per cent of all fatal twovehicle collisions no one was speeding.

Lies, damed lies and statistics. The author conveniently omits the twenty something percent of people who were on the wrong side of the road. I wonder, what were they doing there? Overtaking at speed perhaps?

Something like only 1% of speed checks are on motorways.

BrianD

Magpie wrote:

Which is why you might have hoped that the government would actually seek expert advice on this, rather than operating a knee-jerk 'make everything slower' policy.

Slower by a couple of km/h adding a miniscule amout of time to your journey. So what?

I travel 100km on a R road. It used to take me 1 hour now it takes me an extra 15 min.

gurramok

Victor wrote:

Lies, damed lies and statistics. The author conveniently omits the twenty something percent of people who were on the wrong side of the road. I wonder, what were they doing there? Overtaking at speed perhaps?

Something like only 1% of speed checks are on motorways.

That 1% detects the vast majority of speed detections where the tiny minority of accidents are happening. (ie a cash cow wtih no relevance to reducing fatalities)
Magpie is correct is his analysis of how neglectful the Garda are in enforcing the speed limits in country roads where the vast majority of deaths occur.
Just drive down the country on the secondary routes where you have lotto luck in spotting a garda enforcing the speed limit law.
I have travelled on these roads many times and almost every car travels over 60mph when the oppurtunity arose, its the lesser known shame which should be highlighted by our so-called caring garda/politicians.

Things will never change unless they start policing the roads properly and not criminalising motorists who go over the limit by as little as 2mph on safe motorways.
Urban drivers and those on motorways across the land are penalised unfairly.
'If I wanna speed, I just go on secondary roads', thats the mindset of almost every driver I bet out there.

seamus

Victor wrote:

Lies, damed lies and statistics. The author conveniently omits the twenty something percent of people who were on the wrong side of the road. I wonder, what were they doing there? Overtaking at speed perhaps?

/me makes that vaguely-hissing, biting-the-lip motion.

That's an entire debate extra. For the purpose of statistics, where should certain types of accidents go? Does a drunk driver crashing his vehicle at speed go into drink driving or speeding or both? Does a dead joyrider go into speeding, young driver, or crime statistics or all three?

As you say, there are lies and damned lies. Statistics take the form of one or the other.

BrianD

Things will never change unless they start policing the roads properly and not criminalising motorists who go over the limit by as little as 2mph on safe motorways.

That is hearsay. You have no documentary evidence that this is the case. Few motorists will get stopped or ticketed for doing 72mph on a motorway. Urban myth.

What need to see is universal policing on all roads. I recall driving in Australia, where there is a high level of enforcement, where you would drive at 100km/h for hours and not a soul would overtake you. This is the case in both urban and rural environments.

magpie

The author conveniently omits the twenty something percent of people who were on the wrong side of the road. I wonder, what were they doing there? Overtaking at speed perhaps?

Possibly, but as I'm sure you are aware this is not 'speeding' per se as speed limits do not count when overtaking.

Also, these overtaking-based accidents are not happening on dual carriageways, which is where the tickets are being handed out, but on poor 2 lane country roads which are not policed in any meaningful way.

MrPudding

magpie wrote:

Now you're resorting to that old reliable sanctimonious argument that you should 'just obey the speed limits'.

Well pardon me for saying you should obey the law. I know some laws are stupid. I also know that some speed limits in some areas seem slow to *me*. That does not mean they are inappropriate, there may be a reason I am not aware of for the slower speed. Of course, they may well be inappropriate. As far as I know the local authorities now have the power to change speed limits in areas under their control. If you feel a speed limit is too slow or indeed too fast you can lobby them to have it changed.

magpie wrote:

Clearly you either a) live in denial, b) do not drive or c) honestly believe that every driver who goes above 30mph in a built up area is a 'criminal' and should be punished. Incidentally, this is all drivers without exception in my experience.

No. No & maybe. Although I try not to I do, like most people I do speed occasionally. I even got caught once, on a road that I think has an inappropriately low limit. Who was to blame? Me. I made the decision to go faster than the posted limit. Am I happy? No, it stinks. Am I am criminal?

www.dictionary.com wrote:

4 entries found for criminal.

crim·i·nal ( P ) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
   1. Guilty of crime.
   2. Characteristic of a criminal.
3. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.

n.

One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

It would appear so.

magpie wrote:

Surely you can acknowledge that there is a problem whereby the vast majority of road users are criminalised without there being any corresponding reduction in road fatalities?

They are being criminalised because they break the law. They may not agree with the law but that is irrelevant.

magpie wrote:

Do you believe that the law is infallible?

Not even close. What I do believe is that some laws are simple. For example. If you go over a certain speed on a certain road, you have broken the law. Simple. Even an idiot should be able to understand that. (By the way, I am not calling anyone here an idiot. I am merely pointing out that this is not a difficult concept.)

magpie wrote:

Yes, karma-based speeding tickets. What a brilliant idea. Let me know any of your other stunning insights into how the system 'all works out in the end'

Interesting term. I still however feel backroads would be quite hard to police safely. Also, I know it is not even close to being ideal but you have to admit that people that speed on country road probably do speed on better roads too. And before anyone starts, I do not believe this is an proper solution.

magpie wrote:

Meanwhile, back in reality, I'd welcome your comments on this http://www.irishlimits.com/hardpoints.htm, especially the statistics from the NRA and the information regarding the Cambridgeshire Police's decision to publish locations of speed traps to actually reduce speeds.

Some interesting points here also http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/01/18/story411670553.asp




And



Does this sound familiar Mr P?

I’m sorry I don’t believe this. Are you trying to say that when the police publicise the exact location of all their speed traps less people get caught speeding? NO WAY.

Policing is a very strange and difficult thing. Crime changes. Increase police in the inner city and crime moves to the suburbs. Advertise the locations of your speed traps and guess what? Less people will speed in those locations. This does not *cure* people from the desire to speed. It simply means that they will speed elsewhere where they feel they may not get caught. Although it would be hard to prove I would guess that there is still speeding. It’s a bit like that old chestnut “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make any noise?” If a driver speeds and there is no speed detection equipment or policemen around is he really speeding?

One of the English police forces actually did away with all their gatso cameras. The commander felt that the more cameras that were installed the more apathetic the police on the ground got towards road safety and traffic law enforcement. With the reduction in cameras came an increase in police on the ground. His area of responsibility has seen a reduction in road deaths. This is an important point. What you mention above is a reduction in the detection of speeding. This does not necessarily mean that less people are speeding, simply that less people are speeding though the cameras that they know about and getting caught.

When the traffic corp finally gets going we should see a sharp increase in the number of people caught speeding. This does not mean more people are speeding or that the corp is crap. It will simply mean that more of the people that would have been speeding anyway are being caught than would have normally.

What I would like to see is an increased number of gatso cameras in accident blackspots and crappy country roads. I would like to see them clearly marked and have warning signs well in advance. Ideally I would like them never to catch a single person speeding. I do believe that cameras are used as revenue generators here, to a certain extent, and I think this is wrong. They should be used to reduce speed. I think on this point we probably agree.

I would also like to see the traffic corp out in force and enforcing the laws that are there.

MrP

Victor

gurramok wrote:

That 1% detects the vast majority of speed detections where the tiny minority of accidents are happening. (ie a cash cow wtih no relevance to reducing fatalities)

Apologies, that was 1% of tickets, not 1% of garda time spent / other metric.

mackerski

BrianD wrote:

And yes speed does kill and there is no such thing as safe speeding. Speeding is dangerous driving.

The law defines a separate offence of dangerous driving, so it doesn't seem to agree with you there. Then again...

BrianD wrote:

I travel 100km on a R road. It used to take me 1 hour now it takes me an extra 15 min.

Funny thing - the law used to allow you to do 60mph, so you did, and it was quite safe. Now the law says you can go no faster than 80km/h, and you appear to be complying. Hardly surprising, since it would now be dangerous driving and far more liable to kill someone than it was before.

There is far too little emphasis in modern driving theory on "using your loaf". More's the shame.

Dermot

MrPudding

mackerski wrote:

There is far too little emphasis in modern driving theory of "using your loaf". More's the shame.

Dermot

Most people seem to ignore any kind of driving theory let alone a modern one.

MrP

Capt'n Midnight

MrPudding wrote:

Most people seem to ignore any kind of driving theory let alone a modern one.

MrP

comparing the rules of the road / driver theory test to what most drivers do on the road means that driving theory is an oxymoron

magpie

Are you trying to say that when the police publicise the exact location of all their speed traps less people get caught speeding? NO WAY.

Policing is a very strange and difficult thing. Crime changes. Increase police in the inner city and crime moves to the suburbs. Advertise the locations of your speed traps and guess what? Less people will speed in those locations. This does not *cure* people from the desire to speed. It simply means that they will speed elsewhere where they feel they may not get caught. Although it would be hard to prove I would guess that there is still speeding. It’s a bit like that old chestnut “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make any noise?” If a driver speeds and there is no speed detection equipment or policemen around is he really speeding?

One of the English police forces actually did away with all their gatso cameras. The commander felt that the more cameras that were installed the more apathetic the police on the ground got towards road safety and traffic law enforcement. With the reduction in cameras came an increase in police on the ground. His area of responsibility has seen a reduction in road deaths. This is an important point. What you mention above is a reduction in the detection of speeding. This does not necessarily mean that less people are speeding, simply that less people are speeding though the cameras that they know about and getting caught.

When the traffic corp finally gets going we should see a sharp increase in the number of people caught speeding. This does not mean more people are speeding or that the corp is crap. It will simply mean that more of the people that would have been speeding anyway are being caught than would have normally.

What I would like to see is an increased number of gatso cameras in accident blackspots and crappy country roads. I would like to see them clearly marked and have warning signs well in advance. Ideally I would like them never to catch a single person speeding. I do believe that cameras are used as revenue generators here, to a certain extent, and I think this is wrong. They should be used to reduce speed. I think on this point we probably agree.

I would also like to see the traffic corp out in force and enforcing the laws that are there.

I pretty much agree with this, with the exception that you refer to curing people who have a desire to speed.

Surely the whole purpose of this is to reduce road fatalities? If so have highly visible cameras at blackspots and patrol the country roads where the fatalities are happening, as you suggest. If people 'speed' in completely safe locations then who cares?

If, on the other hand, you think exceeding stated speed limits is a dangerous criminal act that needs to be stamped out, then we must agree to differ. I would maintain that this is a completely inappropriate allocation of police time and resources and serves to do nothing more than increase the public perception of the guards as cynical bullies who like nothing more than lording it over the people who pay their salaries.

We all know going metric and handing out speeding tickets on dual carriageways have absolutely nothing to do with increasing road safety, so why does the government maintain that they are part of their road safety campaign?

BrianD

It is being used as part of a safety campaign though perhaps the safety element is "a side effect". As part of the metric chaneover it is encouraging drivers to check their speed.

Though that was pretty obvious!!!!

MrPudding

magpie wrote:

I pretty much agree with this, with the exception that you refer to curing people who have a desire to speed.

Surely the whole purpose of this is to reduce road fatalities? If so have highly visible cameras at blackspots and patrol the country roads where the fatalities are happening, as you suggest. If people 'speed' in completely safe locations then who cares?

If, on the other hand, you think exceeding stated speed limits is a dangerous criminal act that needs to be stamped out, then we must agree to differ. I would maintain that this is a completely inappropriate allocation of police time and resources and serves to do nothing more than increase the public perception of the guards as cynical bullies who like nothing more than lording it over the people who pay their salaries.

We all know going metric and handing out speeding tickets on dual carriageways have absolutely nothing to do with increasing road safety, so why does the government maintain that they are part of their road safety campaign?

I think we are actually closer in our views than it may appear. I do not think that people who speed are necessarily hardened criminals that should be put away, of course some are. My point is simply that whether you agree with it or not going over the speed limit is a criminal act. You can choose whether or not you break that law. No one else is to blame, you make the choice.

MrP

magpie

You can choose whether or not you break that law. No one else is to blame, you make the choice.

True. The Government can also choose which laws it is going to enforce. It's against the law for your dog to sh1t on the pavement, but I don't see Guards out on Dunlaoghaire Pier with sh1t-detector guns handing out doo-doo tickets, though this would probably have the same impact on road deaths as handing out speeding tickets on a dual carriageway.

I think we are actually closer in our views than it may appear

So it would seem!

It is being used as part of a safety campaign though perhaps the safety element is "a side effect". As part of the metric chaneover it is encouraging drivers to check their speed.

Though that was pretty obvious!!!!

By this logic constant random changes in speed limit and/or the unit used to measure speed/distance would increase road safety by maximising the amount of time people have to spend checking their speed. We could possibly bring in a system of "fathoms per second" measurement and issue drivers with an in-car abacus with which to calculate their speed. This would eradicate road deaths entirely, no doubt.

gerrydublin

lomb wrote:

honestly think it was an error to put up distance signs in km. they should have duel signed them in miles.
its the liam lalwors and charlie haugheys of the world to blame never took a stand and lined there own pockets.

the idea of a changeover to a measurement which is easier to uderstand, I think is something beyond policitians. Personally I'd say it came from the National Roads Authority or the National Safety Council or the Irish Society of Motoring. Lets look at the reasons

1. Metres are an easier measurement to work with.
We know the length of a metre, hence 1000 metres or a "kilometre" is very easy to picture. compare that with the length of a yard, and then trying to explain to someone the length of a mile given the length of a yard. Likewise a 1000th of a metre or a "millimetre" is easier to picture, but do the same with yards and inches. (Don't get me talking about 6 yard boxes or 18 yard lines in football.)

2. More europeans will be coming over to Ireland as the EU gets bigger, therefore as they use metric, to save accidents, we should also. Lets not forget that anyone who uses miles- namely the UK and its former british colonies will know that once they go abroad, more than likely the unit of measurement will be metric. therefore its no problem to them, they are used to being awkward.

3. Cars will be "ever so slightly" cheaper now in Ireland because the manufacturer, of which most will be outside the Uk and its former colonies, use the kilometre speedometer so they don't have to change it for us.

4. As for the excuse of not changing because the Brits across the border are not changing, well we are in the euro and they are not. Has that been a problem, I think not. They still manage to cross the border into Ireland for gaelic football games. Yes it can sometimes cause a problem for some drivers who when they get to our toll bridges are shocked when we don't accept foreign currency, like what toll bridge in europe does?

5. Should we change over to the correct side of the road. Yes, and I can see this happening in the future. Not just because we will save a load of money on the cost of cars, because car manufacturers will be able to supply Ireland with part of their stock for continental europe and not part of the traditional stock for the Uk market. And we all know how economies of scale work!
But as I said previously, we will have more europeans coming over here each year, and our accident rate will increase otherwise.
will that mean we will have a massive amount of accidents when we do. Probably, but bear this in mind, by 2014, we should have all the intercity routes up to motorway standard, these roads that make up to 8% of our road network, carry at least 50% of the traffic. These roads by their very nature are relatively easy to switch direction, it worked in Sweden.
Then we come to local roads, if county Cork is anything to go by, people drive in the middle of the road because they are so narrow, so switching the sides of the road will have little effect. the problem will be in the cities. This is where public transport may have a roll to play.
6. To finish, KM/h is not metric anyway.
hour is not metric, seconds are. but who heard of a millisecond, or a kilosecond. After all there are not 100 seconds in a minute, nor are there 100 minutes in an hour, hence an hour is not metric by defintion. However every other country ignore this pedantic point, so we can also

magpie

More europeans will be coming over to Ireland as the EU gets bigger, therefore as they use metric, to save accidents, we should also

Once again, the fascinating idea of the metric system increasing safety. What accidents will this prevent?

Cars will be "ever so slightly" cheaper now in Ireland because the manufacturer, of which most will be outside the Uk and its former colonies, use the kilometre speedometer so they don't have to change it for us.

Erm, no. Cars are expensive in Ireland because of VRT, and because our government chose to find a way around the EU legislation designed to harmonise car prices throughout europe by bringing in the 'under the counter' measure of charging VRT.

Lets not forget that anyone who uses miles- namely the UK and its former british colonies will know that once they go abroad, more than likely the unit of measurement will be metric. therefore its no problem to them, they are used to being awkward.

Former colonies? Like Ireland? Are you saying we're used to being awkward because we used the British (imperial) rather than the French (metric) system? What's your point?

Should we change over to the correct side of the road. Yes, and I can see this happening in the future. Not just because we will save a load of money on the cost of cars, because car manufacturers will be able to supply Ireland with part of their stock for continental europe and not part of the traditional stock for the Uk market. And we all know how economies of scale work!

See point above about car prices. And why is driving on the right hand side of the road 'correct'?

Then we come to local roads, if county Cork is anything to go by, people drive in the middle of the road because they are so narrow, so switching the sides of the road will have little effect. the problem will be in the cities. This is where public transport may have a roll to play.

You are either a lunatic or a comic genius. I'm not sure yet.

Crossley

gerrydublin wrote:

3. Cars will be "ever so slightly" cheaper now in Ireland because the manufacturer, of which most will be outside the Uk and its former colonies, use the kilometre speedometer so they don't have to change it for us.

Not so. Ireland will now be the only market in Europe into which manufacturers will have to supply right-hand drive models with km speedometers. So instead of being a subset of UK spec cars (albeit with many extras removed to make them affordable here with the punitive VRT rates) Irish cars will now be a specification of their own which no doubt will give rise to another price differentiation.

ambro25

The short of it is... Ireland was Imperial because of the Brits, who were and remain Imperial because Napoleon didn't win - and Ireland (alone in the EU with the Brits) drive on the left for the very same reason.

Ireland is now Metric and Euro'ed (and the Brits aren't), because Napoleon's descendants got their way 200 years on!

Seriously - no, cars won't be cheaper (to you and me), they'll provide better returns to the manufacturers and dealers - you didn't really, seriously think they'd pass the localization savings on, did you?

And no, the left-driving thing will not happen anytime soon: can you imagine the size of the installed park to replace? 99.99%, to put it bluntly. Too much money at stake, for all parties involved. And I can just see insurances rubbing their hands from here, having a mix of RHD and LHD on Irish roads (OMG , the thought :eek: ).

If anything, metric speed limits will increase accidents, as most cars -including modern cars- already include kph equivalents on speedos, but those are far too small for the 'quick-glance' check afforded by bigger-sized mph numbers - whereby limit sticklers (from this Forum, there seems to be quite a few in Eire) will take twice as long to check the speed, e.g. pay half as much attention to what's going on outside their car (not that they seemed to be paying much attention before that, anyhow )

mackerski

Crossley wrote:

Not so. Ireland will now be the only market in Europe into which manufacturers will have to supply right-hand drive models with km speedometers. So instead of being a subset of UK spec cars (albeit with many extras removed to make them affordable here with the punitive VRT rates) Irish cars will now be a specification of their own which no doubt will give rise to another price differentiation.

The first part of this is true - however, there are plenty of manufacturers (the majority of mass-market ones?) for which there should be no price issue. Opel, for instance, already treats Ireland as a separate market - the UK gets Vauxhalls instead. Because of VRT, the mix of engine sizes and models pushed for the Irish market is often different (poorer) than the UK equivalent.

In any case, in a world where most purchasers of brand new cars get to customise all manner of paintwork, upholstery, bum warmers, navigation systems and all the rest of it, the fact that the manufacturers have to jump one way of t'other on the instrument cluster shouldn't matter a whole lot.

Dermot

mackerski

ambro25 wrote:

The short of it is... Ireland was Imperial because of the Brits, who were and remain Imperial because Napoleon didn't win - and Ireland (alone in the EU with the Brits) drive on the left for the very same reason.

*cough* Malta *cough*
*cough* Cyprus *cough*

Dermot

ambro25

*cough* car market size? *cough*
*cough* car market value? *cough*