Speed camera mega-thread ***Read first post before posting***

OSI wrote: »

I hate speed cameras as much as most people, and I've often cursed at their seemingly stupid placement. But what a lot of people don't do, is remember just how fricking retarded the general populace is.

You say yourself that that camera was placed on a road with a sharp bend. It's bad and/or busy enough to need hatchings in the road, do you really want Mr/Mrs "Checking my texts while flying through a roundabout without stopping to look or indicate" plowing through that area in the pitch black at 100+? Because they do. Speed cameras are ****, but they're a necessary evil to tame the unending stupidity of the average driver in this country.

But whatever the politicians with their simplistic solutions think, speed cameras only test if you are within some arbitrary limit irrespective of road conditions, traffic, or time of day. They don't record some idiot doing her makeup while driving at 50 clicks, or "white van man" with a mobile grafted to his ear while tailgating. They don't do anything about the fool on a motorbike weaving through traffic with his handlebars inches away from the nearest vehicle and often in their blind spot. They don't find anything wrong with a young lad in a Golf enhanced with go-faster stripes and an ear-splitting exhaust zooming through traffic as if he was on a dodgem track.

In fact, if I understand the statistics, the cameras don't actually make money for the government -- instead they cost the taxpayer. So why, if they don't solve the problems of road accidents, are we paying for them and spending our driving time glued to speedometers?

blackwhite wrote: »

I assume you can link to an academic study that proves this?

You want a study to show that hitting someone at 30 results in death less often than hitting someone at 60?

runawaybishop wrote: »

You want a study to show that hitting someone at 30 results in death less often than hitting someone at 60?

That's not what he said, and you know it.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Looks like what he said to me. Its pretty on relevant given that people were on about 60 kmph zones etc.

He said that speed surveillance reduces road fatalities.

Lower speeds in collisions will reduce fatalities. Speed surveillance doesn't automatically result in reduced speeds in collisions.

Either you aren't able to read, or you are deliberately ignoring what was typed to troll.


Badly positioned speed surveillance is a waste of resources that does SFA.
Positioned well, it can and will save lives.

Up until about 5 months ago I used to drive this road a few times every week, and did so for 6 years.
https://www.google.ie/maps/@54.087835,-8.385746,3a,75y,324.74h,77.06t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sgkzGB3oxL3fbANcfMojJXA!2e0
Only once did I see any speed surveillance (or any other Garda presence) on the stretch between Castlebaldwin and the N17 junction, despite the stretch averaging about 1 death per year over the past 20 years.

Sometimes, there will be a van parked in Castlebaldwin village, which is a sensible location as people often don't slow down to 50 through it.

But, the most common location to see speed surveillance is on the strech between Castlebaldwin and Ballinafad - where there hasn't been a serious or fatal accident since the road was upgraded.

Big check point at minish level crossing gates on the cork killarney rd

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Has there been speeding on that road since the road was modified?

Looked that up for kicks and thats a seriously straight piece of tarmac. But, and I have to do this some time when I find a van and have some kit with me, record driver behaviour approaching and leaving. The usual, at least from my DVR is:

Van -> Oh Dear -> Slow Down -> Pass -> Boot it off the line.

So basically you've slowed someone down for 10 seconds. Chances of another speed trap ahead? Slim to be honest. So you'll just continue on your way, after all, you 'got away with it' this time. Will it affect your behaviour? For many drivers I doubt it. Because after all you have those that:

• Don't care about points (Will speed anyway and take the rap)
• Those that are good at spotting and predicting van placement (Won't be caught)
• Those that observe speed limits anyway (Won't be caught)

So who are you actually targeting in the end?

I've always wanted to conduct a study of setting up speed measurement in a sign posted camera zone (After getting average speed data over a few weeks for the stretch of road) Then conduct two surveys:

• Make it really obvious. Big signs. Plenty of advance warning.
  
• No warning. Completely hidden.

And compare speeds approaching, at and exiting the zone. I honestly believe that the only time you will see a reduction in speed is if someone actually sees the measuring taking place.

blackwhite wrote: »

At a time when we have finite resources, it would make a lot more sense to focus efforts on where it would improve safety as opposed to revenues.

That would be the main crux of my argument against the vans. Taking a completely abstract example, how much for signage on the ramps of the M50 that would simply say things like 'Always drive left unless overtaking' or 'Centre lane is for overtaking only' Would probably cost €100k at most (And thats being very generous) A van costs that. Even a print / media campaign wouldn't run the cost of these vans for any aspect of driving.

If the vans did tax & insurance, I'd be a little more 'for them' but they don't. And its a huge missed opportunity.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The people who don't see the point are those on here who regurgitate the same lame arguments over and over, and those who want to drive as fast as they like whenever they like (aka the motorist who keep supplying the revenue while complaining about "stealth taxes", "fish in a barrel", yadda yadda).

Here's a recent report on fixed speed cameras:



Source: http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=30dc714251cd4cee96f2b85ca&id=84089f958a

If you are unable to admit that speed surveillance on a road which averages a fatality every year would be more beneficial than on a road with zero fatalities then you really do have issues.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I have nothing to admit. If you have an issue with the location of speed cameras then take it up with the relevant authorities. Bleating about it on Boards won't change the situation.

Considering "bleating about it on boards" is pretty much all you ever do, there aren't enough :rolleyes: for a post as stupid as that.


Although given your record on here, it's clear that the above is about as close your ego will ever let you get to conceding a point

Iwannahurl wrote: »

When you eventually manage to muster some evidence to support convincing arguments, I'll see whether there's a point worth conceding. In the meantime, all you're doing is eye-rolling.

Simple question

Is speed surveillance more useful on a stretch of road with zero fatalities over the last 10 years, or on a stretch of road (only 4/5 miles away) which has had, on average, at least one fatality every year?

This is the whole point of what was posted - no amount of whataboutery, strawmanning or any of your other bluster changes that.

If you aren't capable of answering yes or know to that then it just goes to show what sort of character you are.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Find out what criteria GoSafe used for the siting of the the speed van in this particular instance, then post the details here.

Until then, we only have your supposition to go on.

I have already made the general point that speed surveillance does not have to be justified by anything other than speeding and its inherent risks. There is no good reason to wait until someone is killed before implementing speed surveillance. In fact I would regard that as unethical, which is why I think the AA's arguments in this regard are pure bunk.

If you think additional speed surveillance is needed on a dangerous stretch of road, then that's where you should be concentrating your efforts.

So you think it's a good idea to ignore the road with a high level of fatalities.

Good to know.

BTW - there's been a campaign for a number of years about that stretch of road, with which I was involved in the past.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Quote please.

So you refuse to answer the first question still?