anti-speeding adverts - effective?

ScumLord · 24-10-2016 3:05pm

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Say you were a wonderful driver who can handle a car way better than anyone else. You're cruising down the road at 20kph over the marked speed limit because the road conditions are far better than those twats in the RSA think they are, they're just pandering to the slowcoaches. All of a sudden a youngfella on a bike emerges from a gate on a bike, crosses the hard shoulder and stops with his front wheel on the road. There's an oncoming car, you can't swerve around him. You have to use your well serviced, top of the range brakes. You almost get stopped in time. Almost.

Why don't you keep an eye on side roads? Being aware of what's ahead includes looking along side roads, slowing down for those possible dangers. There's no need to constantly drive slow for a black spot that's five miles away.

Unless the lad pops out from a behind a bush on a road that's entirely enclosed and so narrow there's barely room for two cars to pass. In those conditions I'll drive to suit the conditions. On a road with a hard shoulder and little to no obstructions on the side of the road then there's no reason for me to do doing the same speed as that other road.

Rather than drive the conditions of the road you're just doing a blanket go slow. That's bordering on incompetence in my opinion. And most drivers in this country are borderline incompetent when it comes to understanding car behaviour. Driving slow does not make up for that incompetence.

A person that's been driving for years should be able to tell you off the top of their head where all the dangers are on their drive home.

jmayo · 24-10-2016 3:10pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Slowing down gives you more time to react to unexpected events and conditions. It also reduced the overall damage caused in the event of a collision. Slowing down also gives others more time to react to your driving.

So ideally we should be driving around at 50kph ?

Speed kills is a convenient slogan and often an excuse to use to cover a myriad of issues that our authorities chose to ignore.

There are a fair few sections of road in this country which up until speed limit changes were 60 odd miles an hour or 100 kph.
They are now 80 kph and according to you and the authorities someone is being hugely reckless driving at 90kph or 100 kph on the same section of road even though it wasn't reckless a few years ago.
There hasn't been any disimprovements on or changes of circumstance along the road in question and AFAIK there were never any accidents there.
I am not talking about narrow bendy twisty roads that shouldn't ever have been anywhere near 100kph, but flat straight sections of wide road.

Some people seem to think that just because they are within the speed limit they are driving perfectly well and if someone is outside the limit then they are a would be murderer.
It is never that simple.

Our road markings are often imbecilic.
I know sections of flat straight road that now have double white lines down the middle and yet a mile down the road there is a dashed line even though it is humped and between two bends.
But just because of the road markings it is illegal to overtake on one and not the other, even though only a complete muppet would overtake where it is actual legal to do so.

Our road markings and speed limits are often lunacy and it looks like it is just some council official, perhaps engineer or planner, who just made arbitrary decisions on a whim?

If Irish authorities were interested in road safety they would have taken out some accident blackspot bends and junctions as a priority.
Instead they spend money glorifying the local village and painting fooking stripes on the road at the accident blackspot.
Oh and the speed limit at the blackspot may now be 60kph or 80kph, but everyone knows it is not enforced because there is nowhere for the speed van to park. :rolleyes:
It is parked a few miles down the road where there was never an accident.

If Irish authorities and Gardaí were really interested in road safety they wouldn't be hiding vans and cars along good stretches of road to catch people going a few kms over the limit, but would be highly visible on patrol on dangerous roads and especially at night and weekends.
But that would cost too much in overtime and they wouldn't be shooting fish in a barrel bringing in revenue.

osarusan · 24-10-2016 3:15pm

ScumLord wrote: »

And most drivers in this country are borderline incompetent when it comes to understanding car behaviour. Driving slow does not make up for that incompetence.

If so many drivers are borderline incompetents, wouldn't you prefer them to be borderline incompetents who are driving a bit slower, rather than a bit faster?

Just because there are other issues involved in bad driving and accidents (issues which you might think are more pressing) doesn't mean that a campaign to reduce speed is a bad thing and that 'Speed Kills' is a nonsense statement.

ScumLord · 24-10-2016 3:20pm

osarusan wrote: »

If so many drivers are borderline incompetents, wouldn't you prefer them to be borderline incompetents who are driving a bit slower, rather than a bit faster?

No, I'd prefer if they were properly trained. The "speed kills" is a nonsense waste of money that avoids dealing with the real problem of people being terrible at driving. The speed kills campaign does nothing to actually improve driving, it just makes people scared of cars and prone to unhelpful behaviour.

Skylinehead · 24-10-2016 3:23pm

osarusan wrote: »

IJust because there are other issues involved in bad driving and accidents (issues which you might think are more pressing) doesn't mean that a campaign to reduce speed is a bad thing and that 'Speed Kills' is a nonsense statement.

But the RSA only ever focus on speed as a factor (aside from drink driving, which is its own beast), when the vast majority of accidents are caused by incompetence or not paying attention. The RSA is selling a false message, and people are believing it. They think that if they slow down, they'll be fine, all the while on their phone and not knowing how a roundabout works.

osarusan · 24-10-2016 3:27pm

ScumLord wrote: »

No, I'd prefer if they were properly trained.

You are making it an 'either/or' when it isn't.

Part of proper training would involve knowing what speeds are appropriate for situations anyway - driving too fast or too slow is one kind of incompetence.

Skylinehead wrote: »

But the RSA only ever focus on speed as a factor (aside from drink driving, which is its own beast), when the vast majority of accidents are caused by incompetence or not paying attention. The RSA is selling a false message, and people are believing it. They think that if they slow down, they'll be fine, all the while on their phone and not knowing how a roundabout works.

Again, that's the fault of the RSA for not addressing other issues - just because they are not sending out other messages* doesn't mean that the 'Speed Kills' message is wrong in and of itself.

*although I've seen ones addressing mobile phone usage while driving, and the 'grab a coffee if tired' one.

Rory28 · 24-10-2016 3:28pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

But the RSA only ever focus on speed as a factor (aside from drink driving, which is its own beast), when the vast majority of accidents are caused by incompetence or not paying attention. The RSA is selling a false message, and people are believing it. They think that if they slow down, they'll be fine, all the while on their phone and not knowing how a roundabout works.

the not paying attention is the biggest factor. I have been rear ended twice on my motorbike at red lights by people texting. I mean what the hell people? put your damn phone down!

Skylinehead · 24-10-2016 3:34pm

osarusan wrote: »

Again, that's the fault of the RSA for not addressing other issues - just because they are not sending out other messages* doesn't mean that the 'Speed Kills' message is wrong in and of itself.

*although I've seen ones addressing mobile phone usage while driving, and the 'grab a coffee if tired' one.

The RSA pushing out so many anti-speed messages, which takes away from their budget/airtime to show other equally important issues, is detrimental to the overall goal of reducing accidents, because it doesn't make people aware of the real problems. Going with almost exclusive "speed kills" messages is a lazy and ineffectual method of improving road safety.

I think I've seen one RSA phone advert ever. Probably saw 3 or 4 speed ones yesterday alone...

Little CuChulainn · 24-10-2016 3:37pm

jmayo wrote: »

So ideally we should be driving around at 50kph ?

Speed kills is a convenient slogan and often an excuse to use to cover a myriad of issues that our authorities chose to ignore.

There are a fair few sections of road in this country which up until speed limit changes were 60 odd miles an hour or 100 kph.
They are now 80 kph and according to you and the authorities someone is being hugely reckless driving at 90kph or 100 kph on the same section of road even though it wasn't reckless a few years ago.
There hasn't been any disimprovements on or changes of circumstance along the road in question and AFAIK there were never any accidents there.
I am not talking about narrow bendy twisty roads that shouldn't ever have been anywhere near 100kph, but flat straight sections of wide road.

Some people seem to think that just because they are within the speed limit they are driving perfectly well and if someone is outside the limit then they are a would be murderer.
It is never that simple.

Our road markings are often imbecilic.
I know sections of flat straight road that now have double white lines down the middle and yet a mile down the road there is a dashed line even though it is humped and between two bends.
But just because of the road markings it is illegal to overtake on one and not the other, even though only a complete muppet would overtake where it is actual legal to do so.

Our road markings and speed limits are often lunacy and it looks like it is just some council official, perhaps engineer or planner, who just made arbitrary decisions on a whim?

If Irish authorities were interested in road safety they would have taken out some accident blackspot bends and junctions as a priority.
Instead they spend money glorifying the local village and painting fooking stripes on the road at the accident blackspot.
Oh and the speed limit at the blackspot may now be 60kph or 80kph, but everyone knows it is not enforced because there is nowhere for the speed van to park. :rolleyes:
It is parked a few miles down the road where there was never an accident.

If Irish authorities and Gardaí were really interested in road safety they wouldn't be hiding vans and cars along good stretches of road to catch people going a few kms over the limit, but would be highly visible on patrol on dangerous roads and especially at night and weekends.
But that would cost too much in overtime and they wouldn't be shooting fish in a barrel bringing in revenue.

What a rant. You are attributing an awful lot to me that I didn't say. What I said was driving slower is safer and that speed in itself can be dangerous in that it gives you less time to react, gives others less time to react to you and increases the amount of damage done in the case of a collision. If you want to argue any of those points with me that's fine but don't bother quoting me if you just want to complain about the speed limit on your local road.

osarusan · 24-10-2016 3:42pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

Going with almost exclusive "speed kills" messages is a lazy and ineffectual method of improving road safety.

Off the top of my head - mobile phone ad, tiredness ad, driving with child in car ad, wear your seatbeld ad, sharing the road with cyclists ad...

But again, my point in this thread is that, whether or not the "Speed Kills" message is an effective way of improving road safety or not, it is not a 'nonsense' or a 'nonsense waste of time'.

Unless you agree with those statements, we are not in disagreement.

Little CuChulainn · 24-10-2016 3:47pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

The RSA pushing out so many anti-speed messages, which takes away from their budget/airtime to show other equally important issues, is detrimental to the overall goal of reducing accidents, because it doesn't make people aware of the real problems. Going with almost exclusive "speed kills" messages is a lazy and ineffectual method of improving road safety.

I think I've seen one RSA phone advert ever. Probably saw 3 or 4 speed ones yesterday alone...

What a load of nonsense. In the last few years there's been ads on phones, attentive driving, drink driving, drug driving, driving while tired, driving without a seatbelt, as well as over a dozen instructional videos on different maneuvers and situations.

ScumLord · 24-10-2016 3:48pm

osarusan wrote: »

You are making it an 'either/or' when it isn't.

Speed kills would be more palatable if it was part of a more effective campaign that focused mainly on training and enforcement. But speed kills is the main focus of road safety in this country. When you take into account the terrible training people get and the disrepair of Irish roads I think saying speed kills is a nonsense. It's like putting a sign at the bottom of tall buildings warning about the sudden stop at the end if you jump off the top.

osarusan · 24-10-2016 3:56pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Speed kills would be more palatable if it was part of a more effective campaign that focused mainly on training and enforcement.

It it would be more palatable, then it isn't nonsense in and of itself.

"The over-emphasis on speeding over other factors in road accidents and proper driving is a nonsense" is a different argument than "Speed kills is a nonsense".

Skylinehead · 24-10-2016 4:04pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What a load of nonsense. In the last few years there's been ads on phones, attentive driving, drink driving, drug driving, driving while tired, driving without a seatbelt, as well as over a dozen instructional videos on different maneuvers and situations.

Like I said, drink (and drug) driving is a different, altogether more serious issue than the others. My point was that the speeding adverts get far more air time than any other issues. Do you disagree with that? Certainly seems to be my experience.

ScumLord · 24-10-2016 4:04pm

osarusan wrote: »

It it would be more palatable, then it isn't nonsense in and of itself.

"The over-emphasis on speeding over other factors in road accidents and proper driving is a nonsense" is a different argument than "Speed kills is a nonsense".

Fine, if that's the way you want to see it.

But I still think it's a waste of time until proper driving training is introduced. It's creating a worse driver, the fear it instils just makes people avoid new situations and focuses the driver on a technique that may help them avoid accidents but is utterly useless in most emergency situations. What does the driver do after they've slowed down? Panic usually.

diomed · 24-10-2016 4:07pm

I think the only thing that will stop some motorists is confiscation and sale of their cars. Proceeds of sale to pay for uninsured drivers.

We should have one very short TV ad on road safety in every ad break: junctions; traffic lights; roundabouts; indicating; speed limits; lane behaviour and so on - a bit like dozens of ads covering the rules of the road.

Little CuChulainn · 24-10-2016 4:10pm

Skylinehead wrote: »

Like I said, drink (and drug) driving is a different, altogether more serious issue than the others. My point was that the speeding adverts get far more air time than any other issues. Do you disagree with that? Certainly seems to be my experience.

I would disagree. That "looking back" ad seems to be on all the time. As does the fatigue one. I can't even remember the last time I saw a speeding one.

Skylinehead · 24-10-2016 4:19pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I would disagree. That "looking back" ad seems to be on all the time. As does the fatigue one. I can't even remember the last time I saw a speeding one.

Fair enough, I don't think we're going to agree with our advert "choices" (like we have a choice) being so wildly different

Honestly at this point I think no amount of adverts are going to do much, when so many people can't get the basics right. Overhaul the driving test at the very least, but that doesn't do anything for the people on the road right now.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz · 24-10-2016 4:24pm

These ads don't help.

The people who are speeding or looking at their cellphones are doing that because in their own narcissistic viewpoint, they honestly don't believe they'll be caught or land up in an accident. While they know they're doing something risky you can be damn sure they don't care about you or what some stupid ad says.

How does the state curb this type of behaviour? That is a hard question and worthy of another thread.

lawlolawl · 24-10-2016 4:31pm

Rory28 wrote: »

the not paying attention is the biggest factor. I have been rear ended twice on my motorbike at red lights by people texting. I mean what the hell people? put your damn phone down!

Ha

, the only accident i was involved in was also on a motorbike years ago.

Some clown in a jeep pulled out of a side road right into the side of me as i was riding past him on the main road. His excuse: "I didn't know who had right of way

". I was doing maybe 20kph because it was in a town.

As i said, i was on the main road and he was pulling out from a dead stop from a side road. He'd let a few cars past already before he decided he wanted to do 5 grands worth of damage to my bike. I presume he got tired of waiting or was just so completely incompetent/dimwitted that he had no ****ing idea how to operate the few tonnes of metal he was piloting.

But at least he wasn't speeding, right?

That same week, a housemate of mine had some auld one drive into the back of his car in the exact same town doing around 20kph as well. She admitted she was half turned around talking to her passenger at the time but my buddy already knew this because he had been watching her do so in his rearview.

lawlolawl · 24-10-2016 4:39pm

Issac Breezy Jackrabbit wrote: »

These ads don't help.

The people who are speeding or looking at their cellphones are doing that because in their own narcissistic viewpoint, they honestly don't believe they'll be caught or land up in an accident. While they know they're doing something risky you can be damn sure they don't care about you or what some stupid ad says.

How does the state curb this type of behaviour? That is a hard question and worthy of another thread.

First thing would be a two-strikes rule for mobile phone use while driving. Get caught once and you get a warning, next time you lose your licence for 2 years and have to resit your test and go through the whole L, N plate etc. rigmarole again.

It's gotten to the stage where i notice exactly who is on their phone when driving even if i can't see into the car to make sure. Sudden changes in speed (fast, fast, slow, slower, burst of speed, oh we're back down to slow again), drifting all over the place in and out of lane, less indicating than usual (and Irish people barely indicate as is), not responding to traffic lights for a good ten seconds after they've changed. It getting worse out there every day.

The Backwards Man · 24-10-2016 4:55pm

ScumLord wrote: »

A person that's been driving for years should be able to tell you off the top of their head where all the dangers are on their drive home.

A person that's driving for years might tell you that alright, but an experienced driver knows that no one can tell where all the dangers might appear.

Rory28 · 24-10-2016 4:58pm

The Backwards Man wrote: »

A person that's driving for years might tell you that alright, but an experienced driver knows that no one can tell where all the dangers might appear.

I can. the danger appears where you least suspect it.
Crafty like that it is.

The Backwards Man · 24-10-2016 5:05pm

Rory28 wrote: »

I can. the danger appears where you least suspect it.
Crafty like that it is.

It can appear where you most expect it, or where you half expect it, just as handy.

PARlance · 24-10-2016 5:12pm

I would love to see an advert targeting idiots who only give themselves a foot or two breaking / manoeuvre space from the car in front. Drivers who drive up someone's hole basically.

They fall into two frustrating categories. The guys that do it at speed and the guys that do it well below speed limits.

I drive from Dublin to the West a lot. Coming out of Dublin it can be very stop start on the motorway. Generally the 2 lanes are in full use and there's a constant stream. That's not what there designed for but if there's a constant stream of traffic the driving up someone's arse will not get you there any quicker. Traffic up ahead is likely to slow down to a halt at times, give yourself more than a foot of reaction time.
These geniuses will regularly resort to weaving in and out of lanes like madmen once they can't take anymore of sniffing someone's arse.

The other type is the driver one who'll meet a slow moving vehicle ahead and decided to get into the slip stream of that slow moving vehicle, happily sitting there less than a car space behind and no intention of overtaking when safe to do so. This can be great craic once as train of these drivers builds up.
If you're not going to overtake, then give the car behind space to overtake you.

Rant over.

Vorenus400 · 24-10-2016 5:31pm

osarusan wrote: »

Very good ad from New Zealand a few years back.

Thats a great ad. I think the Irish ones are hiting diminishing returns with the shock and horro of a crash. Here is another great Kiwi ad about drink driving

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtWirGxV7Q8

ShadowHearth · 24-10-2016 7:11pm

Hammer89 wrote: »

The anti-speeding ad which sticks in the mind is the one where your man celebrates his goal with a couple of pints. Then he's driving all along all happy, singing 'there's nowhere I'd rather be', obviously forgetting he's in a ****ty 306, which then flips over into some suburban garden and deads a child.

Speeding was not really an issue, it was driving drunk.

I hate this whole "speed kills" crap they are song hang on here. Its not the speed that kills, it's the **** driving, alcohol and poorly maintained cars with bold tyres.

Assholes doing 60-70km in 100km/h Road are more dangerous, then someone keeping a steady 100-110km/h speed.

24-10-2016 7:14pm

Initially these ads have effect but over time i think we become desensitised to the effect of the ad so therefore the RSA need to continuously come up with fresh ideas.

The Backwards Man · 24-10-2016 7:33pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Speeding was not really an issue, it was driving drunk.

I hate this whole "speed kills" crap they are song hang on here. Its not the speed that kills, it's the **** driving, alcohol and poorly maintained cars with bold tyres.

Assholes doing 60-70km in 100km/h Road are more dangerous, then someone keeping a steady 100-110km/h speed.

Do you know there are only to types of drivers on the road? Those who know they have a lot to learn, and those that think they have nothing to learn. Doesn't matter how fast they drive or how adept they are at overtaking, everyone falls into one of those groups.

As a wise man once said, it's better to be stuck behind someone who knows their limitations than stuck in front of someone who doesn't.

wakka12 · 24-10-2016 7:43pm

I really like car ads, generally theyre really powerful. One of them really affected me, the woman in it keeps looking back over her shoulder and ages backwards throughout the ad all the way back to one moment. It reveals that her daughter was killed in a car accident as she looked back over her shoulder to her baby daughter and diverted her attention form the road. And she's been looking back ever since the accident. Just really shocking

ScumLord · 24-10-2016 8:01pm

The Backwards Man wrote: »

As a wise man once said, it's better to be stuck behind someone who knows their limitations than stuck in front of someone who doesn't.

I could say with absolute certainty if your stuck behind a car on a main road the person driving hasn't the first clue where the limitations of their car is never mind their own limitations. Most people are working off facts and statistics from the 1950s. For most drivers their own car is a complete mystery to them.

Jimmy Garlic · 24-10-2016 8:03pm

Speed doesn't kill, incompetent drivers and dodgy roads do. Germany has similarly low road fatality rates as ourselves and they have 100s of kms of motorway with absolutely no speed limits. The standard of driving there is better and people tend to look after their cars a bit better aswell. If you took the reckless young fellas with their ancient sh1tbox starlets etc held together with stickers and cable ties out of the equation our road fatality rates would even be a lot lower.

24-10-2016 8:07pm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Speed doesn't kill, incompetent drivers and dodgy roads do. Germany has similarly low road fatality rates as ourselves and they have 100s of kms of motorway with absolutely no speed limits. The standard of driving there is better and people tend to look after their cars a bit better aswell. If you took the reckless young fellas with their ancient sh1tbox starlets etc held together with stickers and cable ties out of the equation our road fatality rates would even be a lot lower.

I read somewhere that most accidents happen on the smaller roads then the main roads but that was quite a while back. Im not sure the boy racer types are as plentiful as they were but there is still shíte drivers aplenty.

Jimmy Garlic · 24-10-2016 8:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I read somewhere that most accidents happen on the smaller roads then the main roads but that was quite a while back. Im not sure the boy racer types are as plentiful as they were but there is still shíte drivers aplenty.

Regional roads for the most part. And regional standard roads like the N20 and N52 etc that masquerade as national routes. If huge volumes of traffic are forced to use woefully substandard roads like the one that connects our second and third largest cities then people are going to die, it's inevitable. The government and RSA like to blame motorists for everything and never take responsibility for anything.

05eaftqbrs9jlh · 24-10-2016 9:00pm

It's so strange the amount of people who still actually watch TV.

The Backwards Man · 24-10-2016 9:45pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I could say with absolute certainty if your stuck behind a car on a main road the person driving hasn't the first clue where the limitations of their car is never mind their own limitations. Most people are working off facts and statistics from the 1950s. For most drivers their own car is a complete mystery to them.

I see you fall into the think they have nothing to learn category. I thought you were wiser than that TBH.

petrolcan · 24-10-2016 11:27pm

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Do you know there are only to types of drivers on the road? Those who know they have a lot to learn, and those that think they have nothing to learn. Doesn't matter how fast they drive or how adept they are at overtaking, everyone falls into one of those groups.

As a wise man once said, it's better to be stuck behind someone who knows their limitations than stuck in front of someone who doesn't.

The wise words of a man that has done lots of miles in Donegal.

The Backwards Man · 24-10-2016 11:33pm

petrolcan wrote: »

The wise words of a man that has done lots of miles in Donegal.

It was actually an Aussie that told me that, but yeah!

wil · 25-10-2016 1:49am

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Do you know there are only to types of drivers on the road? Those who know they have a lot to learn, and those that think they have nothing to learn. Doesn't matter how fast they drive or how adept they are at overtaking, everyone falls into one of those groups.

As a wise man once said, it's better to be stuck behind someone who knows their limitations than stuck in front of someone who doesn't.

I've learned a fair bit, forgotten some stuff, learned there's much I have yet to learn, unlearned some stuff I later found to be incorrect, might have to relearn some more that now escapes me, but most importantly learned to doubt that I've ever learned anything that was truly learned.

When a wise man starts boiling everything down to a choice between A or B without considering C, he is well on the road to dementia.

Let's go off on a loaded gun analogy.
Some people are naturally brilliant shots, some cross eyed, some cock sure, some take their time, some quick draws, some John Waynes, some who wouldn't know their bore from their butt, but if any of them aims at me while chomping a breakfast roll, while texting or chatting with Sarah or flaming with Keith, or doing their eye/guyliner, doesn't matter how quick or slowly they pull that trigger, I ain't going to be happy**

(**Analogy still in early beta).

Are these "speeding" adverts effective in reducing accidents, probably not significantly. I suspect they are mostly noticed by those that are not the intended targets and excuse poor drivers from having any real responsibility for their driving behaviour so long as they never exceed an arbitrary number on a dial.

ScumLord · 25-10-2016 9:36am

Deleted User wrote: »

I read somewhere that most accidents happen on the smaller roads then the main roads but that was quite a while back. Im not sure the boy racer types are as plentiful as they were but there is still shíte drivers aplenty.

I'd say the majority of speeding takes place on the smaller roads. They're like ambrosia to a speeder.

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I see you fall into the think they have nothing to learn category. I thought you were wiser than that TBH.

I don't know how you could jump to that conclusion? I consider driving to be a martial art and I am a long time student. That's got nothing to do with the fact most drivers in this country are terrible drivers.

Jesus. · 25-10-2016 9:52am

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What a load of nonsense. In the last few years there's been ads on phones, attentive driving, drink driving, drug driving, driving while tired, driving without a seatbelt, as well as over a dozen instructional videos on different maneuvers and situations.

Its a pity they don't do one about driving in the left lane unless you're overtaking

Little CuChulainn · 25-10-2016 10:12am

Jesus. wrote: »

Its a pity they don't do one about driving in the left lane unless you're overtaking

Actually they did. They did a campaign of about six ads on safe driving including driving on a motorway (including lane use), keeping distance from the drive in front and using a roundabout safely.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Better-Safer-Driver/

Steve F · 25-10-2016 10:35am

N53 between Haskballcross and Dundalk Co Louth No hard shoulder, quite a few bad bends in places, blind entrances 100 kph
R178 stretch between Ballykelly and Carrickmacross Co Louth, Superb road,straight,great visability,wider than N53 as it has a hard shoulder yet it is 80kph
I know everyone will say one is an R and one is N but when you are stuck behind someone on the R road tootling along at 70-75 because it's a 80 road and you are scared to overtake because you will be exceeding the speed limit and Mr Gatso is waiting down the road with a speed "trap"
Why can't we have variable speed limits where good "safe" parts of roads are 100 and poor "dangerous" parts of same roads are 80?

Eamondomc · 25-10-2016 10:50am

Steve F wrote: »

N53 between Haskballcross and Dundalk Co Louth No hard shoulder, quite a few bad bends in places, blind entrances 100 kph
R178 stretch between Ballykelly and Carrickmacross Co Louth, Superb road,straight,great visability,wider than N53 as it has a hard shoulder yet it is 80kph
I know everyone will say one is an R and one is N but when you are stuck behind someone on the R road tootling along at 70-75 because it's a 80 road and you are scared to overtake because you will be exceeding the speed limit and Mr Gatso is waiting down the road with a speed "trap"
Why can't we have variable speed limits where good "safe" parts of roads are 100 and poor "dangerous" parts of same roads are 80?

Is it not legal to exceed the speed limit while overtaking, I always thought it was?

jakethepirate1 · 25-10-2016 10:58am

If I'm being honest I used to speed a fair bit. Not at a stupid speed but still not sensible. What scared me into slowing down is the amount of crashes that have happened on my road in the past two years, the majority of them being single car crashes. Its a National road and is relatively wide and straight for the most part. So people think that it is safe to take chances. I can't count the amount of times I have been late for work because the road has been closed because of a crash. My colleagues have said to me that they think the road is cursed. Even my young son has asked me why there are so many crashes and why do people speed. That scared me into slowing down. I think every single crash that happens, no matter how big or small should be photographed and put up on the Garda Facebook/Twitter account. Obviously taking care to be considerate of the family of those involved, so just taking a picture of the car and the damage and uploading after family has been notified where it has been fatal. That way it not only raises awareness of the number of collisions every day, but also might work as a deterrant because people don't want their car being broadcast particularly if they were in the wrong.

Steve F · 25-10-2016 11:11am

Eamondomc wrote: »

Is it not legal to exceed the speed limit while overtaking, I always thought it was?

Yes,yes...but you HAVE missed the point slightly,no?

Steve

Shenshen · 25-10-2016 11:35am

Steve F wrote: »

N53 between Haskballcross and Dundalk Co Louth No hard shoulder, quite a few bad bends in places, blind entrances 100 kph
R178 stretch between Ballykelly and Carrickmacross Co Louth, Superb road,straight,great visability,wider than N53 as it has a hard shoulder yet it is 80kph
I know everyone will say one is an R and one is N but when you are stuck behind someone on the R road tootling along at 70-75 because it's a 80 road and you are scared to overtake because you will be exceeding the speed limit and Mr Gatso is waiting down the road with a speed "trap"
Why can't we have variable speed limits where good "safe" parts of roads are 100 and poor "dangerous" parts of same roads are 80?

Because that would mean hiring people to actually go out, look at the road, tick a lot of boxes and have plenty of tea breaks.
Not to mention having to shell out for new road signs.

As it's the councils who need to apply for "special" speed limits (as in, limits that differ from the national limits which are tied to what type the road is considered to be), I can't see that happen in any grand scale.

Little CuChulainn · 25-10-2016 12:04pm

Shenshen wrote: »

Because that would mean hiring people to actually go out, look at the road, tick a lot of boxes and have plenty of tea breaks.
Not to mention having to shell out for new road signs.

As it's the councils who need to apply for "special" speed limits (as in, limits that differ from the national limits which are tied to what type the road is considered to be), I can't see that happen in any grand scale.

Are you sure your info isn't outdated? National limits don't exist anymore do they? Councils often review speed limits and road signage on request. How many times have any of you actually written in to a council about a speed limit in an area?

wil · 25-10-2016 2:29pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Are you sure your info isn't outdated? National limits don't exist anymore do they? Councils often review speed limits and road signage on request. How many times have any of you actually written in to a council about a speed limit in an area?

Many many limits are a joke, but that's been said so many times it's become a joke in itself. Unfortunately many requests to councils have resulted in even more inexplicable, laughable and expensive solutions. Yes, I've spoken to council engineers.
Many limits are based more on politics and other issues, way before safety. Back in the good old days it was desireable that roads passing your land were lower because that gave a better chance of getting that land rezoned residential. Hence dual carriageways "inexplicably" slowed to 60 kph. Yet roads passing well built up areas, factories, passing through golf courses (inconveniently close to halting sites), winding roads you'd be skidding off at 60 kph, all rated to be legally driven on at 100 kph.

As today's deteriorating stats show, concentrating on so called "speeding" at the expense of most everything else is foolish.

It happened in the USA. They used to be well up in the safety leagues, but at some point they started concentrating on making cars safer and reduced emphasis on driver training, so even despite having a reasonably visible enforcement policy, they plummeted down the safety leagues.

We now have speed vans popping up everywhere, people driving slower than ever, but little else and our road death stats are on the way up. Go figure:(

osarusan · 25-10-2016 2:39pm

wil wrote: »

and our road death stats are on the way up. Go figure:(

No they aren't. Last year was the 2nd lowest total ever, and the numbers are less than half what they were a decade ago.

2006 365

2007 338

2008 279

2009 238

2010 212

2011 186

2012 162

2013 190

2014 197

2015 165

anti-speeding adverts - effective?

Comments