Quote:
Speaking about the conference, Noel Dempsey TD, Minister for Transport, said: "It's a proven fact that speed has a direct relationship with collision severity. The higher the speed, the greater the likelihood of death or serious injury in a collision.
In isolation yes, but that doesn't necessarily follow within a real-world system. Confounding factors such as fatigue, traffic displacement and respect for law must be considered.
Quote:
Noel Brett, Chief Executive of the Road Safety Authority (RSA), said it was important to remind people of the risks associated with excessive or inappropriate speeding.
"Reducing your speed by just five per cent could reduce road deaths by 20 per cent and injuries by ten per cent. But breaking the speed limit by just 5km/h could mean the difference between life or death for pedestrians, cyclists or unrestrained passengers travelling in the car. Hit by a car at 60km/h, nine out of ten pedestrians will be killed."
Looking before crossing the road could mean the difference between life and death for pedestrians (and cyclists too).
IIRC, table 4i of RCGB shows that 85% of pedestrian casualties have pedestrian error (such as failed to look properly) as a contributory factor. So why this total focus on the driver?
Ms Ellen Townsend, Policy Director at the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) wrote:
However, in countries where a safety camera network has been implemented, deaths and injuries as a result of speeding have dropped significantly," she said.
Oddly enough, in countries where a safety camera network
wasn't implemented (such as our own from 1950 to 1992), deaths and injuries were also dropping significantly.
Quote:
"In France, road deaths fell by 30 per cent in the period 2002 to 2005 - safety cameras were responsible for 75 per cent of this reduction.
WTF????? What is that based on?
Camera effectiveness: when factoring for
RTTM, the local "scheme effect" is responsible for 10% of the fall at camera sites [the "scheme effect" not necessarily being only the camera, it can also be other non-camera safety measure installed nearby], over 3 years -
that's 10% over 3 years!.
So that
nationwide 30% over 3 years inherently suggests that every section of every road is monitored by a speed camera - times 3 over !!!!!

I don't think so!
Quote:
"Over the past five years, 331 people have come to our hospital as a result of road collisions, many of which were caused by speeding.
Let's be clear here. only a small portion of those 331 injured will have been because of exceeding the speed limit; don't be fooled into thinking all 331 were.
Furthermore, exceeding the speed limit is one of a great many contributory factors at play. What was the root cause of crashed drunk and drugged drivers who were also exceeding the limit?
Quote:
Following the introduction of safety cameras in Spain in 2008, average speeds dropped by up to 4km/h, depending on the type of road. We estimate that more than 2,200 deaths could be prevented in the EU every year if average speeds dropped by just 1km/h on EU roads, so we would urge the Irish government to prioritise the roll-out of the network of safety cameras this year."
It's fairly obvious what they have done.
We know KSIs are reducing (thanks to continued efforts directed towards car design, road engineering, post-crash care, etc). We also know speeds are forever being ratcheted downwards.
I suspect what these guys have done is wrongly claim a direct causal relationship between those two characteristics, therefore completely disregarding any other safety policy implemented anywhere over that time.
Bastards!