The dangerous side of mobile speed cameras - rant.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by chevypower

i was exaggerating a little bit, but you know what i mean... i dont "slam" them on - but i admit i do know if someone is directly behind me, and if not i do slow down very quickly - i wouldnt do it at the point where i cause the person behind me to run up close to me

ah, thought so. I didnt think you were sort of person. thats a fair point to make.

I know of people who just panic at the sight of a camera or what looks to be like one. My father for one is like that. :yeees: He's a shocker when he see's any new car parked on the side of the road. Its like he's bunny hopping down the main road sometimes! :1syellow1

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by promina

i am 100 percent for speed cameras. I think there should be more. government making money out of people breaking the law.. thats a good thing.

Why is that a good thing when most people might choose to drive at 120 - 135km/h on a motorway in reasonably clear conditions and otherwise safely? Here, the law is considered an *r*e.

The money is recirculated back into the community somehow.

A mythical person sends it to "Consolidated revenue".

I think the fatal road stats are not the best indicator.

Of what?? The roads have been getting safer for 30 plus years, and its not because of Australian 'experts' though they play a very small part.

The roads get congested more and more each year, and the roads are losing quality fast, imho.

Yet the 'toll' has historically fallen having regard the growing per licence and per vehicle registration criteria.

The issue of maintenance is another thing altogether and most decent people COMPENSATE when they see bad patches. I would point out we have many more kilometres of divided road under construction, and other upgrades to the remainder of the national network underway, this is called 'improvement', and it costs a lot of money and makes things safer, even for the sheer dumbarses, particularly those who are easily indoctrinated.

The suggestion of patrolling police cars with cameras has its advantages of the visual deterrent... but honestly, do you think there could ever be enough police cars on the road to put a down trend on the fatality rate ? one thing is sure though, if that were the case, they would need *allot* of revenue.

During the 1980's, NSW had over 1,400HWP - we now have around 900. EVERY police HWP unit had the words "HIGHWAY PATROL" across the boot and bonnet, they were 'loud', it must be said road user behaviour was much better back then compared to the 'me' attitude prevailing today. The decrease in crashes since then is not because of fewer police, but owing an improved road network, improved vehicular safety. If we had the same level of HWP, our behaviour would be improved, this is a seperate argument as to what constitutes a 'safe speed'.

speed cameras at the bottoms of hills... yeh. thats not cool fair enough... though cars come fitted with brakes that are simple to operate.

See first quote, this mention highlights the one of the reasons why cameras are hated, on the other hand government research finds most people support speed camera enforcement. You can take that with a grain of salt.

I have lost my license because of a speed camera, and i have no problem with that, because i broke the law... its no hidden secret that breaking the law comes with consequences.

But it didn't STOP YOU from BREAKING THE LAW in the first instance, and in any case, "was it a safe speed for the prevailing circumstance"?? If not, then I'd argue you should have been charged.

I think its fair to point out that i plan to join the police in 3 years time :P

This does not surprise me. I feel sorry that you have never lived under derestriction, that you will NEVER get to appreciate and understand it, and will only ever live in a very narrow field of view.

But on the other hand, with time generally comes maturity, there may be help yet.


NB - A new law is soon to be released, this law will prohibit the use, nation wide, of using front fog lights in clear conditions. Feel free to enforce:-)

[flappist]

Originally Posted by promina

i am 100 percent for speed cameras. I think there should be more. government making money out of people breaking the law.. thats a good thing. the money is recirculated back into the community somehow.

i think the fatal road stats are not the best indicator. the roads get congested more and more each year, and the roads are losing quality fast, imho.

the suggestion of patrolling police cars with cameras has its advantages of the visual deterrent... but honestly, do you think there could ever be enough police cars on the road to put a down trend on the fatality rate ? one thing is sure though, if that were the case, they would need *allot* of revenue.

im not sure how many of you own police scanners (i think QLD`ers are the only ones that can listen now) but you must agree, 90 percent of the time police are too busy going to jobs, to pull over cars at random and would more than likely be forced to ignore the speedee ( :P ) to go to a job.

speed cameras at the bottoms of hills... yeh. thats not cool fair enough... though cars come fitted with brakes that are simple to operate.

i have lost my license because of a speed camera, and i have no problem with that, because i broke the law... its no hidden secret that breaking the law comes with consequences.

i think its fair to point out that i plan to join the police in 3 years time :P

Well Adolf, you look like you might have the wrong attitude for police, they tend to want officers who can assess a situation rather than blantently apply any law they think of at the time.

Go and look at you car.
Any mud on either number plate.....
Dirt on windscreen.....
How is your emmission level......
Condition of your shockies/tyres....
Are you always alert and never drive if you are tired or have a cold...

All of the above can get you rolled.

If and when you do join the police you will have your "supertrooper" mentality toned down by older more experienced people who have a realistic view of the world.

Form your statement you show a very naive view of life. You seem to believe random statistics that may or may not support you agenda. You look like you want to save the world and do the right thing.

Remember, the Waffen SS, KGB, McCarthyists, Spanish Inquisitors and Al-Queada all thought they were doing the right thing and saving the world too.....

[promina]

err ? i struggle to see how you came up with that from my post ? :P

perhaps you should join the KGB if you can do a full psychological profile from a 300 word written oppinion ?

*shrugs* i have my oppinion, you have yours... though my adds to the discussion

anger anger :P

[laneman]

Here in Qld if you get caught speeding by a camera in a comercial vehicle,ie company vehicle,its double demerits and double fine!!! :

[promina]

^

i always thought that the company can cop a find (double the amount) if they cant nominate the driver ?

when did that law come in? because i didnt get hit with double demerit/fine

[promina]

Why is that a good thing when most people might choose to drive at 120 - 135km/h on a motorway in reasonably clear conditions and otherwise safely? Here, the law is considered an *r*e.

I have no doubt there are situations where that is completely possible. But the problem with that is the issue of equality. Not everyone is able to make such an educated guess as to the correct speed they can safely travel. An 18 year old person is invinsible in his station wagon with 23 year old rear drum brakes. See where im going ?


Of what?? The roads have been getting safer for 30 plus years, and its not because of Australian 'experts' though they play a very small part.
I don’t dispute that for a second… that was the point I was getting at

Yet the 'toll' has historically fallen having regard the growing per licence and per vehicle registration criteria

The issue of maintenance is another thing altogether and most decent people COMPENSATE when they see bad patches. I would point out we have many more kilometres of divided road under construction, and other upgrades to the remainder of the national network underway, this is called 'improvement', and it costs a lot of money and makes things safer, even for the sheer dumbarses, particularly those who are easily indoctrinated.

Again, I don’t dispute that either. Though that dosnt take into account the other 97 percent of roads that arnt undergoing maintenance. (because I obviously have to make sure everything is clear so it can not be taken out of context… much) that isn’t to say that 97 percent of roads are congested/in bade shape. "most" people compensate



During the 1980's, NSW had over 1,400HWP - we now have around 900. EVERY police HWP unit had the words "HIGHWAY PATROL" across the boot and bonnet, they were 'loud', it must be said road user behaviour was much better back then compared to the 'me' attitude prevailing today. The decrease in crashes since then is not because of fewer police, but owing an improved road network, improved vehicular safety. If we had the same level of HWP, our behaviour would be improved, this is a seperate argument as to what constitutes a 'safe speed'.

I think that goes into “the ultimate road safety fix” argument, all the different things that need to be improved to fix the problems. Ofcourse a flood of police would help the situation, though there are a shortage of police atm.

But it didn't STOP YOU from BREAKING THE LAW in the first instance, and in any case, "was it a safe speed for the prevailing circumstance"?? If not, then I'd argue you should have been charged.


You make a good point. It didn’t stop me. Fyi, I was going down a hill, 6km’s over… bastards :P


This does not surprise me. I feel sorry that you have never lived under derestriction, that you will NEVER get to appreciate and understand it, and will only ever live in a very narrow field of view.

But on the other hand, with time generally comes maturity, there may be help yet.


NB - A new law is soon to be released, this law will prohibit the use, nation wide, of using front fog lights in clear conditions. Feel free to enforce:-)


Indeed, I have that military self discipline persona in real life :P you sound like one of my friends telling me to lighten the **** up.

Why do you want to use fog lights at day ? :P

[flappist]

Originally Posted by promina

err ? i struggle to see how you came up with that from my post ? :P

perhaps you should join the KGB if you can do a full psychological profile from a 300 word written oppinion ?

*shrugs* i have my oppinion, you have yours... though my adds to the discussion

anger anger :P

Simple....

Your posts show an attitude "This is the law.....the law is absolute....the law is always right....if you transgress you will be punished....don't complain if you are punished"


Maybe you cannot see that.....

[clontarf_x]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Keepleft's post

For once, I completely agree with one of your posts. It's excellent to see someone who is highly involved in the descision making and enforcement of our road laws and usage has a fair and unbiased view of what most others would agree is a rather valid set of observations and suggestions.

But you and your bloody fog lights :P

No seriously, It's great to see a lot of people know what should be "right" and what is "wrong"

[promina]

Originally Posted by flappist

Simple....

Your posts show an attitude "This is the law.....the law is absolute....the law is always right....if you transgress you will be punished....don't complain if you are punished"


Maybe you cannot see that.....

in general, yes.. i think that. mainly because i think we are lucky to live in a nation with such relaxed laws/punishments

thankyou for clarifying howerever

[David See]

Wow! And a previous contributor called this thread "stupid".

[Casper]

I'll put this in simple terms.
Given that the prohabition period in the US was univeraly seen as another absurd law and only a fraction of the population (under 20% IIRC) broke that law what does it say for this taxation enforcement?
In Victoria, over the next 3 years, it is projected that 3% of ALL motorists will NOT recieve a speeding fine of some kind. (based on the Vic Governments own numbers and projections).
Effectively 97% of people are breaking the law.. that means the law is absurd. It is a tax, not a road sofetly inititive... PERIOD.

Simply, the hunt for revenue is greater than the "need" for safety. Every single police officers I have spoken too about it even agrees.

[gbright]

Originally Posted by promina

^

i always thought that the company can cop a find (double the amount) if they cant nominate the driver ?

when did that law come in? because i didnt get hit with double demerit/fine

the company still dosnt have to nominate a driver and they do cop an inflated fine but its more like 1000 dollars and not just double


it's not that this thread is stupid its just that it is irrelavant
we all have the same basic view here that we dont want to get done by speed camera's and in some case's they are revenue raiseing and can do more harm than good but this thread has now just degenerated to slinging matches between "the staunch beliver's that all speed camera's should be thrown on the fire and will not budge from that position" and "the i dont like them but can see the reasoning to an extent" in the end it they are a fact of life and everyone in the first aforementioned group are just going to have to cop it sweet cause that's not going to change so stop whinging about how it's not safe and all that jazz get off your high horse cause if you really were that worried about road safety you would not be speeding in the first place nor would you be travelling at a speed that could cause you to "drift over" the speed limit if you were really worried about the money or the points (victorians i can understand with only 3kms tolerance) you would be travelling and 95 instead of 100, 55 instead of 60 remember its a maximum not a minimum


[donning flame suit as we speak do your worst]

[blueoval]

Im amazed at how this thread has turned.

Lets just all shut our eyes hey? :P

[gbright]

if that is directed at me i dont quite see how my eyes are shut "shrugs" but hey whatev

[GCFordChic]

gbright,
i mostly agree with you.
A voice of reason in a thread with far ranging and some OTT opinions.

LTDHO,

If you are yet to see any good that speed cameras provide, then you havent been open to the views expressed by others on this thread.

Promina,

Good on you for recognising that the laws have structured boundaries and there are problems when they are crossed. Even though others on the thread seem to want you to become a cop that will let certain people 'off' in certain cirumstances, stick to your guns when you get there, Police are there to enforce the law, the Courts to interpret the law and the Government to make the law.


Some say that they dont like the zero tolerance attitude towards speed LIMIT laws, so if there should be more tolerance what about when you are 1km above the Speed limit+5km tolerance? What about a tolerance for going over the white line at a stop sign? It would be dangerous to allow this because it has been determined that the safest place to stop at the intersection is behind the line, with 10% tolerance a car would be in the path of other traffic, that isnt safe. When approaching the stop sign a driver is expected to be able to judge when to apply pressure to the brake pedal to ensure they come to a complete stop before the line. This is the same principle with speed. Roads have a pre-determined 'safest' speed. This speed is posted (or you are expected to know its 50km). As the driver of the vehicle you are expected to be able to bring the car to that speed using the accelerator pedal and by monitoring it on your speedo then remain at or just below(1 or 2 kms/hr) that speed for the remainder of the time whilst driving on that piece of road.

When it is broken down like that i think it is fairly easy to see why the law is enforced.

[gbright]

amen!!

[Falchoon]

Originally Posted by merlin

PPPS - If you drive the M2 motorway - KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING - There is a motorcycle cop whose sole job it is to ride up and down the entire motorway all day long enforcing this rule. I witnessed him pull over a blue AU Fairmont yesterday arvo. I had a chat to the motorcycle cop later on at a servo and he told me this, so be warned.

Can someone please send this cop to Canberra...

[Falchoon]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

NB - A new law is soon to be released, this law will prohibit the use, nation wide, of using front fog lights in clear conditions. Feel free to enforce:-)

I thought this was already a law in most states?

I pretty much agree with the views posted by GCFordChic and promina.

My job entails driving for approximately 6 hours a day, I have had 3 speeding fines in the past year, ironically from police not speed cameras. Totally my fault, I was doing the wrong thing and was punished accordingly. First fines in about 10 years though - probably more good luck than good management, though I now spend a lot more time on the road than I did 10 years ago due to my job.

[clontarf_x]

Originally Posted by GCFordChic

gbright,
What about a tolerance for going over the white line at a stop sign? It would be dangerous to allow this because it has been determined that the safest place to stop at the intersection is behind the line, with 10% tolerance a car would be in the path of other traffic, that isnt safe. When approaching the stop sign a driver is expected to be able to judge when to apply pressure to the brake pedal to ensure they come to a complete stop before the line. This is the same principle with speed.

What a load of bollocks. You do not compare stopping behind a white line painted on the road to the speed of a vehicle...

Roads have a pre-determined 'safest' speed. This speed is posted (or you are expected to know its 50km). As the driver of the vehicle you are expected to be able to bring the car to that speed using the accelerator pedal and by monitoring it on your speedo then remain at or just below(1 or 2 kms/hr) that speed for the remainder of the time whilst driving on that piece of road.

I dunno what part of the law specifies you should stay 1-2km under the limit... but anyway, in the interest of not completely flaming you I won't have a go. The whole point of most of the peoples posts on this thread is driving to the conditions of the road. Where you say "pre-determined", who determines this I wonder...

An 80km/hr limit on a road capable of safely carrying vehicles at 100km/hr is stupidity at its best... As Keepleft has shown us time and time again, many de-restricted highways around the world are of similar quality to some highways over here, yet the descision-makers feel its best to cause congestion on our roads, driver irritability and accidents because "Nannas Road Council Group for Panty Wearers" decides 80 is a nice round number...

Meh, it's late.... feel free to flame

[GCFordChic]

1. the premise is the same, driver of vehicle is expected to be able to operate vehicle in order to either A) stop before white line, B) keep the car at a steady speed. You are expected to 'read' the road conditions and adjust your actions accordingly to achieve the same result.

2. didnt say the law says you stay 1-2kms under, just my suggestion. In order for you to not feel like 'flaming' me i will make sure i clarify this in future posts.

3. 'driving to the conditions of the road'. um yes. the speed is set (no i dont know exactly by who, but im sure a few peolple in high places must sign off on it...(suggestion not the law)) in order to create an equilibrium of sorts on the road. We all see the problem when some people obviously overestimate their experience/the weather conditions affect/ other drivers. If each of us determined our own speed on every single road there would be chaos.

4. i would hate to think that de-restricted highways around the world are of the same quality as the ones where i am. that scares me.

5. you dont want anyone else determining the speed that is safest on a particular road, however it seems you are willing to present yourself as an expert who is in the best position to determine the 'safest' speed.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by gbright

if that is directed at me i dont quite see how my eyes are shut "shrugs" but hey whatev

No it wasnt directed at u, it was just a general comment made in gest. Lets all shut our eyes and hope the problem goes away. Thats all I meant, doesnt really mean anything. Just trying to make a light hearted comment and what I thought was going to become a sour thread. :

[Firefox7]

Originally Posted by David See

On The Central Coast, we have speed cameras installed on perfectly straight bits of comparitively good road that have rarely seen a major accident. One in particular, on Woy Woy road, is installed 2km from where a major black spot USED to be until the road was fixed. Now the road is excellent either side of the speed camera for some distance. So why is it still installed now?

We have one Speed Camera car regularly hidden behind a concrete barrier on the F3 at Tuggerah southbound - you would not know he was there. He is in a no stopping zone and the little sign is wedged under the Armco railing. No chance of seeing him - the Police must have been very proud of discovering that spot!

And i'll agree with you.....Woy Woy road back in the early eighties was an absolute death trap at some points. My father was the boss at woy woy police, and often commented on the ammount of fatalities on that stretch of road, esspecially the old kink near the look out. Since the upgrade, it's a fantastic road and very safe.
And yeah..travelling down the F3 south bound at tuggerah...it's a very good spot to hide a camera car, behind that concrete barrier....you don't see it till your well past it. And I have never seen a sign displayed either. It's just legalised theft really.


Cheers.

[GCFordChic]

(tongue in cheek) legalised theft, yeah they should have to warn you to drive like a cop is watching so you dont get punished for breaking the law! It is so wrong to let people drive like they normally would when they think the cops arent around and punish them.

[VSSII]

People are comparing apples and oranges here. I believe people in Vic have every right to complain. Hidden cameras and a ticket in the mail 6 weeks later is a very poor form of driver education. Your speed enforcement methods really do suck. This thread started about NSW and cameras in this state could not be more clearly signposted! No I'm not a fan, but there are some areas that need enforcing and police cannot safely do so.

How are they sneaky? With a minimum 2 signs before the camera you must be blind if you miss them. Even uni directional camaras normally have signs on both side of the road so as to remind you when you're heading home. What more do you want? Flashing lights and sirens? Hang on they already have flashing lights on the one at Mt White on the F3 when the variable speed is reduced!! And the tolderance given by NSW is nowhere near Victoria's. While it won't be divulged everyone knows it's more than 5kph! Or whatever Victoria gets.

These cameras have nothing to do with the police. Don't confuse the two. I believe all law enforcement should be carried out by police. Not Council Rangers, not the RTA. Thats why I don't like them. Of course the easiest thing to do is just watch your speed. If thats too hard stay off the road.

[blueoval]

Its funny you say that VSSII, in SA I often see unmarked mobile camera vehicles with cops in uniform manning them. I didnt know the 2 were as seperate as you say. Plus the mongrels always place the signs AFTER you have passed the camera, pretty much to say 'cop that, we gotcha'.

[the black pig]

There's a lot of opinion here. But the people who defend speed cameras, and who believe exceeding the speed limit is anything but a minor contributor to accidents, need to be a little less gullible to their state government's propaganda and deceit, and do some reading and research about the REAL impact of speed cameras on driver behaviour. Research indicates that for a number of reasons, cameras may actually be contributing to a slow-down in the decline of the road toll. And while accidents may decrease at the site of a speed camera, there is often a corresponding increase in accidents before and after it.

Here's a good start to getting a little understanding of the often complex relationships between speed cameras and accidents. It's a well researched article on speed cameras in the UK and Australia by Dr Alan Buckingham, Senior Lecturer in Sociology at Bath Spa University College, England.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/caspe...20analysis.pdf

[GCFordChic]

Here is a summary of what is happening on this thread:



(Posted previously in a different thread by Shockwave XR8, i felt it fitted here quite well too)

[troppo]

Hmmm... the problem here I think is we all have different opinions on how significant speed is as a causal factor in accidents. Those who are pro-cameras also tend to be those who fully support the concept that "speed kills" while those who oppose speed cameras tend to give speed a much lower weight as a causal factor in accidents and much more to driver attitude/training/experience.

I would be in the latter group. It's hard to explain without writing a book but an example would be at the racetrack on a corner where the HQ's slide around at 80kmh but the F1's on the same track can do 120 no probs. So, what if a HQ tried to do it at 100kmh and lost it, is speed to blame? Or a troopy rolling it at 80?
I say not. The F1's managing to do it safeley is proof that speed is not the problem. If it can be done, it means the problem is either the machinery or the driver. And since the machinery has no control over what it's doing and since it's up to the driver to drive within the limits of their's and their vehicle's abilities, it's always the drivers fault. End of story. It's always struck me as odd when a single car that has an accident on a racetrack always has the driver as the primary focus of blame and in almost every case, the drivers themselves acknowledge the fault was theirs for exceeding the cars limits. But, when the exact same accident happens on a public road, the driver never gets a mention and the newspaper article is usually worded to say the driver 'lost control' without ever asking why, and then blame speed as a 'significant factor', especially if the accident is fatal. I call BS, there has to be a reason why people lose control and if that reason comes down to speed, then the driver immediately becomes the cause of the accident in my book for driving beyond either their driving skills or their cars handling abilities.
"Speed kills" is a common misconception not helped by the leeches who make a living through promoting it. If there is a point at which speed kills, humans haven't found it yet and we have no reason to believe there is one. Theoretically, one could reach the speed of light if given enough energy and a gentle enough acceleration.
Even as a road message, the NT here must be a real thorn in the side to those who promote the message. Open speed limits here so you'd expect half the population to die in road accients every year yet nothing like that happens. Sure, we have a higher than average road toll per head but a closer look at our road stats will reveal an out of proportion percentage of single vehicle accidents involving foreign tourists unfamiliar with dirt roads, four wheel drive handling/capabilties, wildlife, or the fatigue associated with driving long distances between towns. In short, speed is never a causal factor in accidents for me, driving beyond yours or your cars limits is almost always the true cause in cases where speed is blamed. And since I think speed is almost never to blame, do I need to state my position on the revenue raising machinery invented as a futile attempt to supposedly to enforce a law which is completely irrelevant, if not counter-productive, to the alleged aim of improving road safety?

[Panda]

Originally Posted by troppo

...the NT here must be a real thorn in the side to those who promote the message. Open speed limits here so you'd expect half the population to die in road accients every year yet nothing like that happens...

That's right, we are taught that once you exceed the posted speed limit you are going to crash and die.

Sorry Troppo, looks like your days are numbered lol

The way I look at it is that paying speeding fines is like paying rego or insurance - it's just another tax that allows me to drive on the roads. At least looking at it like this stops me fire-bombing every camera car I see.

Panda