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

Child Item

Speed Cameras: No good for anything except raising revenue

I.S.T.

More evidence from across the water where the UK authorities have released the accident stats at each speed camera location. It appears that speed cameras do not improve road safety, in some cases they have caused more crashes. All they are good for is transferring massive amounts of cash from motorist's pockets to the Government.

Speed cameras 'do not cut accidents'... they create them, study finds

Speed cameras across England show mixed results

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Breaking news just in: water is wet.

cyclopath2001

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

More evidence from across the water where the UK authorities have released the accident stats at each speed camera location. It appears that speed cameras do not improve road safety, in some cases they have caused more crashes. All they are good for is transferring massive amounts of cash from motorist's pockers to the Government.

That's an amazingly fact-free posting.

The Mail article, which refers to the UK, not Ireland, gives no evidence or stats for the alleged accidents caused by speed cameras and you don't give any stats for net revenue generated by speed cameras in Ireland, despite repeatedly claiming that the cameras are 'revenue generators'.

How much money does 'irishspeedtraps.com' make from its speed trap avoidance service?

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

How much money does 'irishspeedtraps.com' make from its speed trap avoidance service?

You cannot put a price on a service like that and if it's E50 million, it's still not enough.:D

Voodoomelon

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's an amazingly fact-free posting.

The Mail article, which refers to the UK, not Ireland, gives no evidence or stats for the alleged accidents caused by speed cameras and you don't give any stats for net revenue generated by speed cameras in Ireland, despite repeatedly claiming that the cameras are 'revenue generators'.

How much money does 'irishspeedtraps.com' make from its speed trap avoidance service?

What do you think about speed cameras?

Anan1

In fairness, those two articles are very light on actual facts.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That's an amazingly fact-free posting.

The Mail article, which refers to the UK, not Ireland

And I metioned in my post that the articles refer to UK.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

, gives no evidence or stats for the alleged accidents caused by speed cameras

The articles don't give stats but you can google and you will find the stats as released by each council.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

and you don't give any stats for net revenue generated by speed cameras in Ireland, despite repeatedly claiming that the cameras are 'revenue generators'.

That's beacuse we have asked the Garda Press Office for the stats many times, however they won't release them. We are making the allegation, if it is not true they can simple show us the stats to prove us wrong.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

How much money does 'irishspeedtraps.com' make from its speed trap avoidance service?

What has that go to do with anything?

-Chris-

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

How much money does 'irishspeedtraps.com' make from its speed trap avoidance service?

This is the second thread where you have asked questions about the funding/profitability of irishspeedtraps.com.

In both cases it has not been relevant to the thread. Please stop attacking this poster personally and instead address the content of the post.

darklighter

In Ireland, over the last decade, road deaths have gone down.

This is a good thing.

There is no way to PROVE what impact the increased number of speed traps, the NCT, improved enforcement of drink driving laws, improvement of the road network, improvement in vehicle safety features etc have had.

However, I would suggest that all of the above have had an impact.

Whether you like it or not, there are speed limits and if you get caught not obeying them, you pay the price.

We live in a democracy, if you dont like something, go about changing it.

Kevvv

In my opinion the best way to beat the cameras is to reduce your speed. The less people who get caught, the less "income" the government receive. Without this "income" the government will no longer have the funding to keep the GoSafe project running. Just my two cents.

darklighter

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

More evidence from across the water where the UK authorities have released the accident stats at each speed camera location. It appears that speed cameras do not improve road safety, in some cases they have caused more crashes. All they are good for is transferring massive amounts of cash from motorist's pockets to the Government.

Speed cameras 'do not cut accidents'... they create them, study finds

Speed cameras across England show mixed results

How can anyone come up with speed cameras as a REASON for an accident? They are an object in a FIXED position. I dont see anyone blaming trees or crash barriers or direction signs for accidents

cyclopath2001

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

The articles don't give stats but you can google and you will find the stats as released by each council.....we have asked the Garda Press Office for the stats many times, however they won't release them. We are making the allegation, if it is not true they can simple show us the stats to prove us wrong.

What you say is untrue. Your logic is nonsense.

Prove me wrong.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

What you say is untrue. Your logic is nonsense.

Prove me wrong.

Is this enough for you?

But data from South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership reveals accidents where people were killed or seriously injured fell at only 27 of the camera sites – and actually increased at 24.

During the period covered by the statistics, at four sites there were no fatal or serious accidents before a camera was installed, then several incidents immediately after.

Figures also suggest differing effectiveness of cameras across South Yorkshire. In Barnsley, accident rates had increased at 16 of the 23 camera sites, fallen at six and stayed the same at one, whereas levels have fallen at all three sites in Doncaster where cameras have been installed.

At Sheffield’s 16 camera sites, accident rates have fallen at 10, risen at four and stayed the same at two. In Rotherham, accident rates fell at eight of 14 sites, rose at four and stayed the same at two.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/are_they_worth_it_sheffield_speed_cameras_failing_to_cut_accidents_1_3715472

I.S.T.

darklighter wrote: »

How can anyone come up with speed cameras as a REASON for an accident? They are an object in a FIXED position. I dont see anyone blaming trees or crash barriers or direction signs for accidents

Some people instinctively break when they see them, even when they are already travelling at below the speed limit. This causes crashes.

Anan1

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Some people instinctively break when they see them, even when they are already travelling at below the speed limit. This causes crashes.

That's true, but how do you know that it's not solely down to poor camera positioning/signposting?

darklighter

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Some people instinctively break when they see them, even when they are already travelling at below the speed limit. This causes crashes.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Whats the first thing that the majority of drivers do when they see a speed camera, brake hard. That in itself is a reason why they could cause accidents. Personally I think speed cameras are a hazard because of this issue. I have seen people almost stop before a camera on a perfectly clear road, now if the driver behind isnt expecting this it could get messy.

Well then, they are a bad driver.

If you arent breaking the speed limit, you have no reason to brake hard. If an accident happens it is because of bad driving, not because of a speed camera.

I.S.T.

darklighter wrote: »

Well then, they are a bad driver.

If you arent breaking the speed limit, you have no reason to brake hard. If an accident happens it is because of bad driving, not because of a speed camera.

That's all well and good saying that, but the fact is it happens. So these cameras are contributing to dangerous driving and in some case crashes. There purpose is supposed to be the opposite.

darklighter

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Is this enough for you?

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/are_they_worth_it_sheffield_speed_cameras_failing_to_cut_accidents_1_3715472

And where is the PROOF that speed cameras caused these accidents.

There are many possible factors that cause accidents, not just speed cameras.

I.S.T.

darklighter wrote: »

And where is the PROOF that speed cameras caused these accidents.

There are many possible factors that cause accidents, not just speed cameras.

Where is the PROOF that speed cameras reduce crashes (I don't like to use the word accidents as it is not accurate)?

Mr.Boots

Accidents will always happen no mater what.
Speed cameras over time will reduce peoples speed thus reducing outcome of an accident.
Its silly to expect cameras to reduce accidents

darklighter

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

That's all well and good saying that, but the fact is it happens. So these cameras are contributing to dangerous driving and in some case crashes. There purpose is supposed to be the opposite.

The FACT is that incompetant drivers are causing crashes. Inanimate objects don't cause accidents, drivers cause accidents. If you arent speeding, why would you brake hard??? The act of braking is controlled by a person.

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Where is the PROOF that speed cameras reduce crashes (I don't like to use the word accidents as it is not accurate)?

The below quote is from one of your posts:

"At Sheffield’s 16 camera sites, accident rates have fallen at 10, risen at four and stayed the same at two. In Rotherham, accident rates fell at eight of 14 sites, rose at four and stayed the same at two"

These figures show that at certain speed camera sites, accident rates have fallen. So using YOUR logic, this is PROOF that speed cameras are good for something other than raising revenue.

I personally dont agree with this logic as there are a multitude of factors that contribute to accidents.

I.S.T.

darklighter wrote: »

The FACT is that incompetant drivers are causing crashes. Inanimate objects don't cause accidents, drivers cause accidents. If you arent speeding, why would you brake hard??? The act of braking is controlled by a person.

That's like saying we should do nothing about an accident black spot as if the drivers were good enough they would not crash.

darklighter wrote: »

The below quote is from one of your posts:

"At Sheffield’s 16 camera sites, accident rates have fallen at 10, risen at four and stayed the same at two. In Rotherham, accident rates fell at eight of 14 sites, rose at four and stayed the same at two"

These figures show that at certain speed camera sites, accident rates have fallen. So using YOUR logic, this is PROOF that speed cameras are good for something other than raising revenue.

I personally dont agree with this logic as there are a multitude of factors that contribute to accidents.

So what do you believe about speed cameras? Do they reduce crashes?

darklighter

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I happens,there is no point saying they are bad drivers as everybody were amazing drivers we would have a lot less accidents. People brake hard even though they are under the speed limit.

And why are they braking hard???

The ONLY reason to brake hard is to avoid an accident occuring.

Any other reason is incompetence

dr.fuzzenstein

darklighter wrote: »

Well then, they are a bad driver.

If you arent breaking the speed limit, you have no reason to brake hard. If an accident happens it is because of bad driving, not because of a speed camera.

I see plenty of people who,upon seeing a speed camera, step on the brakes and slow down by 20-30 km/h, even if they are within the limit.
It's a human reaction and can catch people out.
Saying "oh, but they shouldn't be doing this!" is like saying "people shouldn't be stupid". The shouldn't, but they are.

darklighter

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

So what do you believe about speed cameras? Do they reduce crashes?

,

I THINK that they do have an impact on reducing speeds but that is hard to prove conclusively one way or another.

However, I am not going to come out with a statement such as "Speed Cameras: No good for ANYTHING except raising revenue" when your own evidence contradicts this.

If you had said "I dont think speed cameras are good for anything other than raising revenue", I probably wouldnt have even looked at the thread

Anan1

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I see plenty of people who,upon seeing a speed camera, step on the brakes and slow down by 20-30 km/h, even if they are within the limit.
It's a human reaction and can catch people out.
Saying "oh, but they shouldn't be doing this!" is like saying "people shouldn't be stupid". The shouldn't, but they are.

People do the same when they see Gardaí. Or accidents. Or even girls in short skirts. In the case of a camera, proper signposting would solve the problem.

dr.fuzzenstein

Anan1 wrote: »

People do the same when they see Gardaí. Or accidents. Or even girls in short skirts. In the case of a camera, proper signposting would solve the problem.

Like "Watch Out For Short Skirts?":D
I'd say they caused a few crashes alright.;)

r3nu4l

darklighter wrote: »

How can anyone come up with speed cameras as a REASON for an accident? They are an object in a FIXED position. I dont see anyone blaming trees or crash barriers or direction signs for accidents

Anan1 wrote: »

That's true, but how do you know that it's not solely down to poor camera positioning/signposting?

darklighter wrote: »

Well then, they are a bad driver.

If you arent breaking the speed limit, you have no reason to brake hard. If an accident happens it is because of bad driving, not because of a speed camera.

Let me bring a personal example to this thread where I was almost rear-ended a car as a result of a speed camera.

See this camera?

Well that camera is placed a few hundred metres after the A14 and A11 dual carriageways merge to form a three lane carriageway, East of Cambridge, towards Newmarket.

The camera is very well signposted and is very visible and not hidden. No problems there.

It's a major commuting road and all drivers who regularly use that road know it's there.

All regular drivers of that route know that the traffic is going to slow from approximately 75-80 mph (or more in lane 3) to about 65-70 mph, so we're all prepared for that.

A couple of months ago I was in lane two already slowing from about 80 down to 70 when the car in front of me (still about 400 Metres from the camera) suddenly braked extremely hard and kept breaking, I got my car down to 50 in seconds and could see the traffic behind me also struggling to cope with the sudden reduction in speed. To avoid being rear-ended, I had to nip into lane 1 very quickly and then accelerate hard to about 65 to again avoid being rear-ended myself by the traffic in Lane 1 and several other cars had to take evasive action.

So despite not tailgating and expecting traffic to slow down, I was still put in a dangerous situation by another driver's overreaction to the placement of a speed camera.

I'm not saying that happens everyday but that's a very recent example and I see less drastic examples (for me anyway :pac:) at least twice a week.

Anan1

That sounds more like an example of a particularly poor driver than of the intrinsic dangers of speed cameras?

Oink

r3nu4l wrote: »

A couple of months ago I was in lane two already slowing from about 80 down to 70 when the car in front of me (still about 400 Metres from the camera) suddenly braked extremely hard and kept breaking, I got my car down to 50 in seconds and could see the traffic behind me also struggling to cope with the sudden reduction in speed. To avoid being rear-ended, I had to nip into lane 1 very quickly and then accelerate hard to about 65 to again avoid being rear-ended myself by the traffic in Lane 1 and several other cars had to take evasive action.

While I applaud your skills, I would respectfully argue that the problem was with the twat in front of you who jumped on the brakes, and the twats behind you not respecting safety distances, not with the camera designed to catch dangerous twats racing on the motorway?

r3nu4l

Anan1 wrote: »

That sounds more like an example of a particularly poor driver than of the intrinsic dangers of speed cameras?

LIGHTNING wrote: »

But if the cameras werent there then it wouldnt happen.

Exactly and there's plenty of intrinsically stupid drivers on the road, we ALL know that and seen examples of it. Merely holding a license unfortunately does not mean that you're a good driver.