Point to point camera legislation introduced.

Watson said :

Um, what about 100kph roads that they are familiar with?

In my experience and observation people pay more attention to those than roads they are familiar with at 50 or 60.

For example, most Canberra people are familiar with the Tuggeranong Parkway, when you drive down that are you paying more attention to the road and what you are doing than when you are driving in the street your house is in ?

For most people the answer would be yes given the volume of traffic, the speed they are doing and the propensity for objects to be lying next to the concrete divider and the middle of the road, especially at night given the level of lighting and that you usually can’t use your high beams due to the amount of traffic. It’s a great motivator to be paying attention to the situation.

deye said :

You can die at 10 kph

Allrrrrright. I’m out.

Watson said :

But my point was not about under what circumstances people start daydreaming behind the wheel. But the severity of the consequences at different speeds. If you admit that some people cannot be trusted to pay attention whilst driving, you should agree that it’s safer for everyone involved to keep the speed limits on most roads down to a speed that does less damage if a crash occurs.

You can die at 10 kph, you can die at 110 kph. Go down that line of thinking and we’ll be back in the days where someone walks in front of the car with a red flag waving.

Educate yourself as a driver, minimize the distractions, drive in a manner that keeps in mind that you don’t know what the other drivers are going to do and for the most part you’ll be fine.

There is always going to be a risk of an accident and/or death in driving, it doesn’t matter how safe we make cars, how slow we drive, or how well the roads are made. After a certain point it’s a waste of time and money in trying to reduce the accident rate to zero as it just won’t happen. You just have to accept that risk and move on.

Frankly there are other areas that we could be looking at to improve the death rate and quality of life that don’t involve roads and vehicles and will help more people.

deye said :

Watson said :

gazket said :

most accidents are caused by inattentive drivers day dreaming . not people speeding. The new cameras are Labours way to get more revenue and give it to Greens to build cycle paths and flower beds.

And if people are going to be day dreaming at the wheel, it’s much better if they do it going 60kph than 100kph.

Go for a drive for an hour or so down the highway at 100 or 110, take note of how much attention you pay. Come back into town and drive through a few 60 and 50 zones, also note how much attention you pay.

From what I’ve seen over my life people pay much more attention to what they are doing while driving when they are going 100/110 rather than 50/60, even more so when they are on streets they are familiar with.

Um, what about 100kph roads that they are familiar with?

But my point was not about under what circumstances people start daydreaming behind the wheel. But the severity of the consequences at different speeds. If you admit that some people cannot be trusted to pay attention whilst driving, you should agree that it’s safer for everyone involved to keep the speed limits on most roads down to a speed that does less damage if a crash occurs.

Innovation said :

I’m sure that everyone who posts here wants safer roads for everyone. This means drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians (and perhaps some other groups I can’t think of).

Where we all seem to diverge, however, are in areas such as:
1/

Methods for monitoring behaviour of road users (eg speed limits);
2/

Methods for punishing or modifying behaviour of road users;
3/

Appropriate road rules (eg speed limits);
4/

Environmental issues (eg public transport design/use, road design/use, vehicle design/use)
5/

Methods for spending revenue (eg raised from 2/ above).

We need ideas (and eventually a system) that will help us to focus on each of the above five issues seperately. Otherwise these threads just keep going around in circles.

Perhaps RA could lead the way somehow to help focus issues/concerns, help groups to reach consensus and coordinate and lobby for action.

Personally, among other opinions, I don’t think there is enough enforcement of road rules (be it more P2P or random cameras, safety inspections or even a greater police presence). Better enforcement should lead to a cultural change in the behaviour of road users and/or it will generate more revenue. I know it’s a bit simplistic but more revenue (should) = less taxes and/or better services.

My main gripe is that I am not aware of any direct accountability as to where revenue goes. As a result, everyone speculate and complain (eg the Gov’t is just out to make money by setting too low a speed limit somewhere or increase monitoring). Obviously we wouldn’t agree as to what money should be spent on but at least we all would know and the Government could blatantly increase road enforcement making it clear what better services (eg buses, light rail, roads or more police) our money would be paying for.

Oh and my last point is, those posters on RA who whinge about speed limits, increased monitoring etc, to me, have no real credibility unless they list their driving offences and over what period of time.

Why would your last point be relevant ?, I speed all the time but haven’t got a ticket for ages.

Watson said :

gazket said :

most accidents are caused by inattentive drivers day dreaming . not people speeding. The new cameras are Labours way to get more revenue and give it to Greens to build cycle paths and flower beds.

And if people are going to be day dreaming at the wheel, it’s much better if they do it going 60kph than 100kph.

Go for a drive for an hour or so down the highway at 100 or 110, take note of how much attention you pay. Come back into town and drive through a few 60 and 50 zones, also note how much attention you pay.

From what I’ve seen over my life people pay much more attention to what they are doing while driving when they are going 100/110 rather than 50/60, even more so when they are on streets they are familiar with.

Innovation said :

Oh and my last point is, those posters on RA who whinge about speed limits, increased monitoring etc, to me, have no real credibility unless they list their driving offences and over what period of time.

One very minor bingle at an intersection not long after I got my first car, at the beginning of my first long distance trip to somewhere I had never been before. I was a bit nervous and a bit excited and wasn’t paying enough attention at an intersection I was familiar with as it was just around the corner from where I lived. I was in the first year of having my p plates.

One minor speeding fine of 117 in a 100 zone also in the first year of my p plates when after working all night at a night club I gave a lift to my flatmate and his friends from Toowoomba to Brisbane because they slept through their alarm, missed their taxi, which missed their bus that was to take them to Brisbane to catch a train up north. I was feeling awake and felt like a drive so I took them to catch the train. On the way back I was feeling very tired and fatigued and stupidly pushed on. My speed kept creeping up, I would eventually notice and bring it down to under 115. Going along the Gatton bypass I passed a police car with a radar gun going the other way. There was at that time no way for them to cross in that location and book me, I knew they operated in pairs so I paid more attention to keeping the speed limit down, but fatigue was really getting to me at that point and further down the road as I came around a large corner at one end of a straight that did have a cross point in it my speed crept up to 117, just as a police car entered the straight at the other end. He lit his lights and crossed over to my side of the 4 lanes divided section and booked me. I woke up enough to make it home with no more problems. I recognize the symptoms of fatigue now and don’t drive that way any more.

They happened in the last half of 93 and the first half of 94. I have never been booked for any offence since, although I expect I’ll get a new speeding fine at some point.

I’m sure that everyone who posts here wants safer roads for everyone. This means drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians (and perhaps some other groups I can’t think of).

Where we all seem to diverge, however, are in areas such as:
1/ Methods for monitoring behaviour of road users (eg speed limits);
2/ Methods for punishing or modifying behaviour of road users;
3/ Appropriate road rules (eg speed limits);
4/ Environmental issues (eg public transport design/use, road design/use, vehicle design/use)
5/ Methods for spending revenue (eg raised from 2/ above).

We need ideas (and eventually a system) that will help us to focus on each of the above five issues seperately. Otherwise these threads just keep going around in circles.

Perhaps RA could lead the way somehow to help focus issues/concerns, help groups to reach consensus and coordinate and lobby for action.

Personally, among other opinions, I don’t think there is enough enforcement of road rules (be it more P2P or random cameras, safety inspections or even a greater police presence). Better enforcement should lead to a cultural change in the behaviour of road users and/or it will generate more revenue. I know it’s a bit simplistic but more revenue (should) = less taxes and/or better services.

My main gripe is that I am not aware of any direct accountability as to where revenue goes. As a result, everyone speculate and complain (eg the Gov’t is just out to make money by setting too low a speed limit somewhere or increase monitoring). Obviously we wouldn’t agree as to what money should be spent on but at least we all would know and the Government could blatantly increase road enforcement making it clear what better services (eg buses, light rail, roads or more police) our money would be paying for.

Oh and my last point is, those posters on RA who whinge about speed limits, increased monitoring etc, to me, have no real credibility unless they list their driving offences and over what period of time.

gazket said :

most accidents are caused by inattentive drivers day dreaming . not people speeding. The new cameras are Labours way to get more revenue and give it to Greens to build cycle paths and flower beds.

And if people are going to be day dreaming at the wheel, it’s much better if they do it going 60kph than 100kph.

zippyzippy said :

Mysteryman said :

The ACT government has no interest in road safety. If they did, we wouldn’t be seeing point-to-point speed cameras. They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.
.

What makes you say they don’t improve safety? Is there evidence for that? Because everything I’ve seen says that they do improve safety – and this seems to be fairly respectable, independent research.

most accidents are caused by inattentive drivers day dreaming . not people speeding. The new cameras are Labours way to get more revenue and give it to Greens to build cycle paths and flower beds.

DPM @ #92

‘ As I alluded to before, I’m sure if you asked 10 people you’d get 10 different answers. I’m guessing that’s why they go back to the ‘standards’ that define speed limits for roads’

No, you will find that about 8 out of 10 or so will give the same answer, This answer explicitly given by the speed 85 percent of motorists travel at on the same piece of road.

It becomes a challenge when that speed is higher than the Gov considers appropriate.

I contend that the Gov should justify the imposition of a speed limit lower than the 85% percentile. There will be a challenge to modify motorists behaviour when the low limit is seen as a lucrative money makers.

dpm said :

But we’re kind of going around in circles here. Who decides what a ‘reasonable speed for a certain location’ is? As I alluded to before, I’m sure if you asked 10 people you’d get 10 different answers. I’m guessing that’s why they go back to the ‘standards’ that define speed limits for roads. If that’s the only info they have ATM, they have to go with that, which i’m also assuming is for the lowest level of skill re: driving etc. You also forgot to mention ‘and time of day’ in ‘reasonable speed for a certain location’, in that most roads can probably have different speeds at different times of day. e.g peak hour vs. 11am. But without adjustable speed signs (like on the Melb ring road) i’m guessing again that they have to stick to to the safest speed for the busiest time of day?
I’m not saying the limits shouldn’t be changed, i’m just saying i’m sure there has been a fair amount of research into speed limits, and they have to follow the endorsed guidelines made from that research. There’s probably more to it than my personal opinion on how fast I could go safely at the time(s) I usually use the road..

Speaking of which, and just by the by, even if they raised the speed limit by 30 kph on all the roads I take to work, I reckon I would be lucky to shave 1 minute off my 15 minute commute each day. There are worse things in the world for me to stress about than that! 🙂

+1 on all of that!

dpm said :

“But it was only JUST red, and the other traffic was still stopped officer!”
I think this highlights how there really can’t be any grey areas in either, and a known limit has to be set for each so that they can be enforced. Therefore, both “I was only just (safely!) over the limit” and “it had only just turned red” have to be acted upon. Otherwise, it’s anarchy out there!

This is actually the crux of the argument which I think too many people naively overlook. Whether we like it or not, we live in a civilised society in which laws are implemented and enforced. So what we’re fundamentally debating here is whether or not the legitimate law enforcement authority has the right to mess with our ‘right’ to disagree with and flaunt those laws. Stop hiding behind the “revenue raising!”and “it doesn’t increase road safety!” rubbish. The law is the law, no matter how you want to slice it. Should we start debating about about murder, rape, assault and theft should be acceptable under certain circumstances but are just misunderstood??

Classified said :

deye said :

dpm said :

Yes, you might say you can safely go ‘a bit’ over the speed limit, and a race car driver may say he can go safely ‘a lot’ over the speed limit, and so on and so on…. where would it end?
.

It ends at setting a reasonable speed for a certain location and accepting that there are risks in everything we do at any time and that we shouldn’t be nannying people so much. The 85 percentile method worked quite well, the problem now is that they try and make the speed limit below what the 85 percentile can handle.

Best comment of the thread.

But we’re kind of going around in circles here. Who decides what a ‘reasonable speed for a certain location’ is? As I alluded to before, I’m sure if you asked 10 people you’d get 10 different answers. I’m guessing that’s why they go back to the ‘standards’ that define speed limits for roads. If that’s the only info they have ATM, they have to go with that, which i’m also assuming is for the lowest level of skill re: driving etc. You also forgot to mention ‘and time of day’ in ‘reasonable speed for a certain location’, in that most roads can probably have different speeds at different times of day. e.g peak hour vs. 11am. But without adjustable speed signs (like on the Melb ring road) i’m guessing again that they have to stick to to the safest speed for the busiest time of day?
I’m not saying the limits shouldn’t be changed, i’m just saying i’m sure there has been a fair amount of research into speed limits, and they have to follow the endorsed guidelines made from that research. There’s probably more to it than my personal opinion on how fast I could go safely at the time(s) I usually use the road..

Speaking of which, and just by the by, even if they raised the speed limit by 30 kph on all the roads I take to work, I reckon I would be lucky to shave 1 minute off my 15 minute commute each day. There are worse things in the world for me to stress about than that! 🙂

MrMan said :

The poll on the Canberra Times website indicates that about 3/4 of people don’t like the idea and think that it’s just revenue raising. I couldn’t agree more. It just feels like this state and country as a whole are making so many steps in the wrong direction at the moment. Lets start taking note of the things that shit us and act on them. This was SIMON CORBELL. Remember that name, and remember to punish him in elections. People just seem oblivious to the fact that if the people don’t like something, the people can change it. Thanks

Unfortunately ACT voters seem vote according to party loyalties, regardless of whether they agree with the party’s actions.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

MrMan said :

The poll on the Canberra Times website indicates that about 3/4 of people don’t like the idea and think that it’s just revenue raising. I couldn’t agree more. It just feels like this state and country as a whole are making so many steps in the wrong direction at the moment. Lets start taking note of the things that shit us and act on them. This was SIMON CORBELL. Remember that name, and remember to punish him in elections. People just seem oblivious to the fact that if the people don’t like something, the people can change it. Thanks

Ah yes, an internet poll. Why aren’t they binding on government 😉

Not just an internet poll. A CT internet poll even! That should automatically become law.

Deye @ #87

‘It ends at setting a reasonable speed for a certain location and accepting that there are risks in everything we do at any time and that we shouldn’t be nannying people so much. The 85 percentile method worked quite well, the problem now is that they try and make the speed limit below what the 85 percentile can handle.’

No-one is surprised that the vast majority of traffic on this 2-3 lane wide road exceeds the 80 limit at the moment, as wide lanes and all traffic generally travelling at the same (elevated) speed is not perceived as dangerous. These speeds are usually in the 90Kph area.

There have not been a rash of accidents at the Dalrymple/Mugga Lane or at the Tamar Street intersections.

Perhaps motorists have been poorly judged by the authorities, and the majority can travel safely at speeds higher than those dictated.

It would assist the Gov’s case if statistics of accidents, relative to any other Canberra roads, show this stretch to be the most dangerous road in the ACT, justifying this camera system.

Or is the fact that the majority of motorists exceed the arbitory limits is simply too great a money earner?

Erg0 said :

Whoever designed that t intersection (just over a blind crest, entering at a right angle at a spot where two lanes are merging) has rocks in their head.

Another factor on the northbound side is the traffic lights at the bottom of the steep downhill stretch. I could imagine there being quite a few rear-enders down there due to misjudged braking if the speed limit was bumped up to 90 or 100.

That intersection isn’t the best design.
As far as I can recall there are no traffic lights in any 100 speed zone, it always drops to 80 before hand. If Hindmarsh was made 100 you would drop to 80 around that traffic light, but extend the uphill side further from the lights than the downhill side.

I’ve always been amazed that there isn’t a red light/speed camera combo on that intersection as it seems to be an obvious spot that people would be tempted to run the light. If they didn’t put in the point to point camera and instead stuck a red light/speed camera on that intersection I wouldn’t be complaining as it would provide a reasonably obvious safety benefit as opposed to revenue raising.

deye said :

qbngeek said :

Hindmarsh Drive, however, is a 4 lane, partly divided road with crap visibility, a hill in the middle that causes worse visibility, more than a few 4 way intersections (including a T intersection on the side of said hill that is almost completely obscured) and is obscured by fog more often than not for 4-6 months of the year.

Except for the top of the hill and the t intersection I would actually consider Hindmarsh to have reasonable visibility, especially compared to other roads that are 100 kph. The fog is handled by driving to the conditions.

Whoever designed that t intersection (just over a blind crest, entering at a right angle at a spot where two lanes are merging) has rocks in their head.

Another factor on the northbound side is the traffic lights at the bottom of the steep downhill stretch. I could imagine there being quite a few rear-enders down there due to misjudged braking if the speed limit was bumped up to 90 or 100.

deye said :

dpm said :

Yes, you might say you can safely go ‘a bit’ over the speed limit, and a race car driver may say he can go safely ‘a lot’ over the speed limit, and so on and so on…. where would it end?
.

It ends at setting a reasonable speed for a certain location and accepting that there are risks in everything we do at any time and that we shouldn’t be nannying people so much. The 85 percentile method worked quite well, the problem now is that they try and make the speed limit below what the 85 percentile can handle.

Best comment of the thread.

MrMan said :

The poll on the Canberra Times website indicates that about 3/4 of people don’t like the idea and think that it’s just revenue raising. I couldn’t agree more. It just feels like this state and country as a whole are making so many steps in the wrong direction at the moment. Lets start taking note of the things that shit us and act on them. This was SIMON CORBELL. Remember that name, and remember to punish him in elections. People just seem oblivious to the fact that if the people don’t like something, the people can change it. Thanks

Ah yes, an internet poll. Why aren’t they binding on government 😉

MrMan said :

The poll on the Canberra Times website indicates that about 3/4 of people don’t like the idea and think that it’s just revenue raising. I couldn’t agree more. It just feels like this state and country as a whole are making so many steps in the wrong direction at the moment. Lets start taking note of the things that shit us and act on them. This was SIMON CORBELL. Remember that name, and remember to punish him in elections. People just seem oblivious to the fact that if the people don’t like something, the people can change it. Thanks

Is that you, Zed? 😉

The poll on the Canberra Times website indicates that about 3/4 of people don’t like the idea and think that it’s just revenue raising. I couldn’t agree more. It just feels like this state and country as a whole are making so many steps in the wrong direction at the moment. Lets start taking note of the things that shit us and act on them. This was SIMON CORBELL. Remember that name, and remember to punish him in elections. People just seem oblivious to the fact that if the people don’t like something, the people can change it. Thanks

dpm said :

Yes, you might say you can safely go ‘a bit’ over the speed limit, and a race car driver may say he can go safely ‘a lot’ over the speed limit, and so on and so on…. where would it end?
.

It ends at setting a reasonable speed for a certain location and accepting that there are risks in everything we do at any time and that we shouldn’t be nannying people so much. The 85 percentile method worked quite well, the problem now is that they try and make the speed limit below what the 85 percentile can handle.

deye said :

running a red light would have a very large risk of having an accident, going over the speed limit by a bit on a 4 lane divided road with good visibility and large radius corners would not.

Yes, you might say you can safely go ‘a bit’ over the speed limit, and a race car driver may say he can go safely ‘a lot’ over the speed limit, and so on and so on…. where would it end?

It was probably a poor example, but what I was trying to say is I suppose they have to draw a ‘line in the sand’ with road rules so they can make roads safe(r).
With lights, it’s fairly simple to draw that line, but with speeding unfortunately they have to cater for the lowest common denominator.
So, while 95%(?!) of us with our competent reflexes, cognition and/or sportscars (or white Commodores) could safely zoom everywhere, speed limits are probably set for those not as gifted (and their crappy cars!).
Then, if they don’t enforce that slow line in the sand equally for all road users, it would be prejudiced against the remaining 5% of people (if some got let off ’cause they could handle driving faster)! That’s my guess on it all….

qbngeek said :

Hindmarsh Drive, however, is a 4 lane, partly divided road with crap visibility, a hill in the middle that causes worse visibility, more than a few 4 way intersections (including a T intersection on the side of said hill that is almost completely obscured) and is obscured by fog more often than not for 4-6 months of the year.

Except for the top of the hill and the t intersection I would actually consider Hindmarsh to have reasonable visibility, especially compared to other roads that are 100 kph. The fog is handled by driving to the conditions.

qbngeek said :

deye said :

dpm said :

On a slightly related matter, I saw someone run a red light this morning, and a 4WD followed them through. However, the 4WD was a cop and pulled over the first offender. (Yay!)
I feel a bit bad but as I drove past the offender staring out his driver window at the cop with his ‘what did I do wrong officer?’ look on his face, I actually laughed out loud to myself! Is that wrong? Am I going to hell for that?
Anyway, it’s kinda related to this post as perhaps some of the arguments about ‘safe speeding’ are similar to those used as excuses for those running red lights? i.e. “But it was only JUST red, and the other traffic was still stopped officer!”
I think this highlights how there really can’t be any grey areas in either, and a known limit has to be set for each so that they can be enforced. Therefore, both “I was only just (safely!) over the limit” and “it had only just turned red” have to be acted upon. Otherwise, it’s anarchy out there!

running a red light would have a very large risk of having an accident, going over the speed limit by a bit on a 4 lane divided road with good visibility and large radius corners would not.

Hindmarsh Drive, however, is a 4 lane, partly divided road with crap visibility, a hill in the middle that causes worse visibility, more than a few 4 way intersections (including a T intersection on the side of said hill that is almost completely obscured) and is obscured by fog more often than not for 4-6 months of the year.

Poor visibility? Partly divided? Hindmarsh drive? I don’t think we’re talking about the same road here.

It would be great to see some sort of standardisation when it comes to setting speed limit zones in Canberra, prior to the absolute blanket enforcement of point to point speed cameras.

Two years ago, I could count the number of 80km/h signs installed on Hindmarsh Drive on two hands… all of which were amoung the smallest standard that Australian standards permit. Hardly the infrastructure a government who was truely concerned about the number of vehicles exceeding a speed limit would maintain.

More signs have been installed since then, but not before the announcement that the ACT Gov was considering point to point cameras.

Even today, the Hindmarsh Drive/Yamba Drive RL Speed Camera enforces an 80km/h speed limit for motorists travelling Westbound on Hindmarsh Drive… yet motorists travelling south on Yamba Drive, who travel over the exact same bit of tarmac that the camera enforces for wesbound motorists, have a 60km/h posted limit.

How is this justified? It does not make sense.

The ACT Government’s speed limit signage and speed limit enforcement for our roads is an utter joke, we already have the most fixed speed cameras per person in the country.

Has the ACT Gov even considered that by installing speed limit signage to a respectable standard that they actually take seriously, the population just might respect speed limits? Doubt it.

actroads.org.

deye said :

dpm said :

On a slightly related matter, I saw someone run a red light this morning, and a 4WD followed them through. However, the 4WD was a cop and pulled over the first offender. (Yay!)
I feel a bit bad but as I drove past the offender staring out his driver window at the cop with his ‘what did I do wrong officer?’ look on his face, I actually laughed out loud to myself! Is that wrong? Am I going to hell for that?
Anyway, it’s kinda related to this post as perhaps some of the arguments about ‘safe speeding’ are similar to those used as excuses for those running red lights? i.e. “But it was only JUST red, and the other traffic was still stopped officer!”
I think this highlights how there really can’t be any grey areas in either, and a known limit has to be set for each so that they can be enforced. Therefore, both “I was only just (safely!) over the limit” and “it had only just turned red” have to be acted upon. Otherwise, it’s anarchy out there!

running a red light would have a very large risk of having an accident, going over the speed limit by a bit on a 4 lane divided road with good visibility and large radius corners would not.

Hindmarsh Drive, however, is a 4 lane, partly divided road with crap visibility, a hill in the middle that causes worse visibility, more than a few 4 way intersections (including a T intersection on the side of said hill that is almost completely obscured) and is obscured by fog more often than not for 4-6 months of the year.

dpm said :

On a slightly related matter, I saw someone run a red light this morning, and a 4WD followed them through. However, the 4WD was a cop and pulled over the first offender. (Yay!)
I feel a bit bad but as I drove past the offender staring out his driver window at the cop with his ‘what did I do wrong officer?’ look on his face, I actually laughed out loud to myself! Is that wrong? Am I going to hell for that?
Anyway, it’s kinda related to this post as perhaps some of the arguments about ‘safe speeding’ are similar to those used as excuses for those running red lights? i.e. “But it was only JUST red, and the other traffic was still stopped officer!”
I think this highlights how there really can’t be any grey areas in either, and a known limit has to be set for each so that they can be enforced. Therefore, both “I was only just (safely!) over the limit” and “it had only just turned red” have to be acted upon. Otherwise, it’s anarchy out there!

running a red light would have a very large risk of having an accident, going over the speed limit by a bit on a 4 lane divided road with good visibility and large radius corners would not.

Mysteryman said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mysteryman said :

That’s not my problem. I’m not the treasurer and I don’t have the time to trawl through the budget looking for money. I would probably start by getting rid of needless and fruitless expenditure though, like the money wasted on Stanhope’s public art installations for example.

Sadly predictable. You complain about the current situation, suggest a wonderful alternative that you can’t explain how it would be paid for, although you should get credit for not referring to someone who disagrees with you as a ‘troll’ for once.

Speaking of sadly predictable… you’re still here.

I do agree with you that my alternative is wonderful. I’m actually surprised you were able to recognise that. I had assumed that from the bent over position you’ve adopted in order to willingly receive the poorly justified and impotent plans from our current government, you’d have trouble seeing from the perspective of a reasonable person. I guess there’s hope for you yet.

Happy to surprise you, although I don’t know why that is the case – I have never argued against having more police to enforce laws. I am intrigued as to why speed cameras are poorly justified or impotent – care to elaborate?

I wish you could have surprised me with a reasoned well thought out response without the insults but I guess that is too optimstic.

qbngeek said :

I read an article a few years ago that said the last aerial enforcement helicopter patrols the Hume because it is one of the, if not the, busiest highways in Australia and there are not enough Highway Patrol cars to police it effectively without some sort of assistance. I am actually surprised there are not more speed cameras along the Hume.

They do still operate along the Hume, I have seen them flying around.

Reminds me of the “Police Aerial Patrol” sign we used to pass on the road out to Mandurah when I were a lad. Some wag had added a graffitied subtitle: “Pigs In Space”.

Watson said :

watto23 said :

I’m not looking to start arguements, but there are plenty or roads in Canberra where the speed limit “could” be higher and thus many people speed on there. No excuse of course. And after seeing how courteous many drivers in Europe are its no wonder we have problems when people are unable to change lanes in Canberra and instead pick a lane and sit in it…. which then forces speeding drivers to become even worse.

I don’t agree with the hypothesis that many people speed because of some conviction that the speed limit is unreasonable. I believe most people speed because they think they are better drivers than everyone else and therefor can go 20+kms over the speed limit without doing any harm. And of course because they’re not clever enough to calculate how much time going that higher speed for that distance actually saves them, which is usually SFA.

My point is, who really cares if the speed limit seems somewhat illogical? Sure, it would be good to make it consistent so you don’t have to keep slowing down and speeding up, but it just isn’t such a big deal.

And I did have to laugh with your courteous European drivers comment. It would really depend on where in Europe you go. Where I come from the speed limit on the freeway is 120kph, but if you dare to overtake at that speed in the fast lane, you’ll have cars going 160-180 tailgating you, flashing their lights and zig-zagging to make themselves more visible in your side mirrors within seconds. So you do not hang in the fast lane indeed there, but it’s got nothing to do with courtesy, but all with getting away from very aggressive drivers.

Yes you are probably right, but certainly on roads in Germany even cars doing 160 or 180 wouldn’t just sit in the lane and expext cars to get out of the way. If you were doing 120 or 130 you wouldn’t overtake if cars were coming at a faster speed. Thats the impression I got. Montenegro however was as bad as anywhere I’ve been, cars would overtake dangerously and often.

As for speed limits, I’m not saying because there is a lot of speeding, thats justifies raising speed limits. I’m saying there are many roads where the speed limit could be considered slow compared to similar roads in Canberra. The speed limits do matter, I realise people will speed no matter what the limit is, but if a road is suitable for a 100km/h limit, then just make it 100km/h. I’d love to see statistics, but there would be very few accidents at 100km/h, however those that do occur, probably account for the deaths that occur.

I’m not against speed cameras, just saying its as much, revenue and politically motivated as it is about saving lives (of course saving lives helps politically!!!). If it means we pay less to the government in other areas, I’m happy, but think too much focus is left on cameras and not enough focus on a complete approach. Even public transport plays a part in this as better public transport means less cars.

00davist said :

deye said :

00davist said :

They also have markers now for Arial point to point speed check in NSW, where lines on the road can be used to judge the speed of a vehicle from a chopper.

Introducing new technologies like these to speed detection can help increase accuracy and help keep speeds down (provided of course equipment is maintained and regularly calibrated)

Aerial spotting and markers are old technology and were in use in Australia in the 70’s and 80’s if not earlier, particularly in the outback highways. IIRC they weren’t particularly effective so were cut back or dropped entirely.

There you go, Learn something every day, i wonder why they have appeared over the last couple of years out of the blue on the Hume then…seems odd.

I read an article a few years ago that said the last aerial enforcement helicopter patrols the Hume because it is one of the, if not the, busiest highways in Australia and there are not enough Highway Patrol cars to police it effectively without some sort of assistance. I am actually surprised there are not more speed cameras along the Hume.

They do still operate along the Hume, I have seen them flying around.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mysteryman said :

That’s not my problem. I’m not the treasurer and I don’t have the time to trawl through the budget looking for money. I would probably start by getting rid of needless and fruitless expenditure though, like the money wasted on Stanhope’s public art installations for example.

Sadly predictable. You complain about the current situation, suggest a wonderful alternative that you can’t explain how it would be paid for, although you should get credit for not referring to someone who disagrees with you as a ‘troll’ for once.

Speaking of sadly predictable… you’re still here.

I do agree with you that my alternative is wonderful. I’m actually surprised you were able to recognise that. I had assumed that from the bent over position you’ve adopted in order to willingly receive the poorly justified and impotent plans from our current government, you’d have trouble seeing from the perspective of a reasonable person. I guess there’s hope for you yet.

This system is already installed between Cooma and Bredbo, with big overhead steel structures housing the camera systems. Same as on the highway to Sydney, so I doubt the current cameras installed in the ACT would be compatible.

The Cooma-Bredbo system is “trucks only”.

On a slightly related matter, I saw someone run a red light this morning, and a 4WD followed them through. However, the 4WD was a cop and pulled over the first offender. (Yay!)
I feel a bit bad but as I drove past the offender staring out his driver window at the cop with his ‘what did I do wrong officer?’ look on his face, I actually laughed out loud to myself! Is that wrong? Am I going to hell for that?
Anyway, it’s kinda related to this post as perhaps some of the arguments about ‘safe speeding’ are similar to those used as excuses for those running red lights? i.e. “But it was only JUST red, and the other traffic was still stopped officer!”
I think this highlights how there really can’t be any grey areas in either, and a known limit has to be set for each so that they can be enforced. Therefore, both “I was only just (safely!) over the limit” and “it had only just turned red” have to be acted upon. Otherwise, it’s anarchy out there!

Mysteryman said :

That’s not my problem. I’m not the treasurer and I don’t have the time to trawl through the budget looking for money. I would probably start by getting rid of needless and fruitless expenditure though, like the money wasted on Stanhope’s public art installations for example.

Sadly predictable. You complain about the current situation, suggest a wonderful alternative that you can’t explain how it would be paid for, although you should get credit for not referring to someone who disagrees with you as a ‘troll’ for once.

fgzk said :

Are these cameras also a ” RAPID ” type data collection point?

Is it possible to view live data of number plates being tracked?

Do the AFP have access to the data collected?

Yes ……From the report

P2P systems also have the potential to be used for purposes other than the enforcement of average speed
offences, including:
– fixed speed offences;
– bus lane enforcement;
– unregistered and uninsured vehicles;
– unlicensed drivers;
– providing traffic data to a Traffic Management Centre (TMC);
– Road User pricing;
– identifying vehicles associated with crime; and
– mass surveillance.

The AFP have indicated a desire to consider the use of ANPR technology to gather intelligence for non-traffic
related offences such as stolen vehicles and vehicles associated with crime. AFP believes the storage of images
for a defined period would prove beneficial from a crime prevention and detection perspective.
Use of the P2P for these purposes would technically be achieved through the use of ‘hotlists’ as described in
Section 1.6.1. However, it is more likely to require integration with a real time alerting mechanism so that police
officers can be despatched to intercept.
This application potentially represents ‘function creep’ and will raise community concerns about the purpose of the
system and the privacy of their data. AFP believes by articulating a clear purpose the practice may be accepted.
However, there are purposes for which community support may be forthcoming, such as vehicles associated with
kidnapping or abductions.

The primary issue with this application is not technical but social. Mass surveillance would represent a significant
policy shift and raise human rights and civil liberties concerns. In particular there is concern at the danger of
“function creep” and this data becoming available to other agencies (welfare, tax) and private organisations and
individuals. Submissions by the Office of the Privacy commissioner to the Queensland Parliamentary TravelSafe
Committee on this matter are discussed further in Section 8.5.

Tooks said :

deye said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

And how, pray tell would you fund this ‘greater police presence’?

If the camera’s pay for themselves through fines, then the police can pay for themselves through greater enforcement of all the road rules, not just the narrow focus of speeding.

Que? How does that work? Police don’t receive the revenue for the fines they hand out.

It goes into the government coffers which means they can allocate more to the police.

deye said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

And how, pray tell would you fund this ‘greater police presence’?

If the camera’s pay for themselves through fines, then the police can pay for themselves through greater enforcement of all the road rules, not just the narrow focus of speeding.

Que? How does that work? Police don’t receive the revenue for the fines they hand out.

How many cops will this take off the road? if they’re paying for more cameras thats a hit to their budget yeah? Which means that all the traffic offences that people care about (dangerious and reckless driving) is going to continue unabaited!

Police have nothing to do with speed cameras or P2P cameras, so it won’t take any off the road.

Are these cameras also a ” RAPID ” type data collection point?

Is it possible to view live data of number plates being tracked?

Do the AFP have access to the data collected?

Mr Gillespie said :

“It’s all for your own safety of course.”
HA HA HA yeah SHHHHUUURRE!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s revenue-raising, and THAT’S THAT.

However there is a way around these MONGRELS. Here’s how you can STARVE these new revenue-raising machines, and WIN at the same time.

Get a stopwatch. Time how long it takes to drive from the first camera to the second camera. Do what you like then SLOW DOWN before the second camera, to make sure you take at least the time it takes to get through to the second camera so your average speed doesn’t exceed 80km/h.

That is absolutely retarded.

smont said :

Mysteryman said :

They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.

Okay let’s see you back this up with some facts. It’s easy to pluck anything out of your backside and throw it on here as some sort of authoritative fact, but I think these “it doesn’t make the roads safer” type comments to whatever speed detection initiatives are mooted are wearing a little thin. Will slowing the 15t truck that came hurling down behind me at about 95kph on Hindmarsh Dr three days ago not increase my safety as a road user??

Come on buddy, you’ve got to do a little better than that if you want to add some meaningful value to this argument.

Meaningful value like “speed cameras work because a saw a truck that might have been speeding!!1!”? Yeah, right….

One of the most obvious indicators is the road toll. Despite the increasing number of speed cameras the road toll in the ACT has not dropped. Take a look at the ABS website. You’ll also notice that despite what the government tells us, speeding is not the cause of a majority of those accidents. Other factors, like alcohol, and age and negligence are. Speed cameras don’t monitor those things.

How about you provide some evidence that speed cameras are effective in making our roads safer. Better yet, provide some that says they are more effective than having more police on the road.

deye said Another thing I noticed in that report. It used to be that the road speed was set by the 85 percentile usage. What the report states they want to do is to reduce the 85 percentile speed to the current speed limit. Perhaps they should instead up the speed limit to the 85 percentile.

Give it up my friend, I tried to explain how the limits were leading to a total disrespect of the law and how brute force enforcement was leading to a massive rate of carnage with our young people but some ssimpleton smartarse always posts “dont speed and you wont get a fine”.

The scary thing is they think this is some kind of withering observation that only they have thought of as they appear incapable of even mildly abstract or layered concepts.

watto23 said :

I’m not looking to start arguements, but there are plenty or roads in Canberra where the speed limit “could” be higher and thus many people speed on there. No excuse of course. And after seeing how courteous many drivers in Europe are its no wonder we have problems when people are unable to change lanes in Canberra and instead pick a lane and sit in it…. which then forces speeding drivers to become even worse.

I don’t agree with the hypothesis that many people speed because of some conviction that the speed limit is unreasonable. I believe most people speed because they think they are better drivers than everyone else and therefor can go 20+kms over the speed limit without doing any harm. And of course because they’re not clever enough to calculate how much time going that higher speed for that distance actually saves them, which is usually SFA.

My point is, who really cares if the speed limit seems somewhat illogical? Sure, it would be good to make it consistent so you don’t have to keep slowing down and speeding up, but it just isn’t such a big deal.

And I did have to laugh with your courteous European drivers comment. It would really depend on where in Europe you go. Where I come from the speed limit on the freeway is 120kph, but if you dare to overtake at that speed in the fast lane, you’ll have cars going 160-180 tailgating you, flashing their lights and zig-zagging to make themselves more visible in your side mirrors within seconds. So you do not hang in the fast lane indeed there, but it’s got nothing to do with courtesy, but all with getting away from very aggressive drivers.

Skidbladnir said :

D. Solomon, “Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver, and Vehicle,” Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, July 1964 (Reprinted 1974).
In which you’re actually safest speeding slightly compared to the rest of traffic.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/98154/images/fig1.gif

I really wish that people who try to merge into a 100 or 110 zone at 60 kph would take notice of this graph.

Jungle Jim said :

dpm said :

What’s funnier is that they double points lost during ‘danger’ periods of the year to try to get people to take more care during those times. Seriously, if that works, why not have the points doubled ALL the time? Seems weird to me…..

Because that takes the emphasis away from the holiday periods. It would be like having a sign for your business stating everything in store is always 50% off – that doesn’t make it a sale, that makes it the everyday price. (I actually saw a sign similar to that somewhere in Europe earlier this year!)

Yeah, I see that side, but in also looks like: “We actually don’t care as much about people who speed (or those that die due to it) during non-holiday periods, but when it’s a holiday period then we are REALLY serious about you speeding! At other times of the year, speeding (or it’s outcomes) are a lesser concern to us…”
As I said, if they think it works to lower speeding and related incidents, why wouldn’t they want that all the time? It’s almost like most of the year is revenue raising and hitting us with wet lettuce, and then there’s the ‘serious’ weeks where they want us to actually slow down (when people think the fines and points will actually affect them in their day-to-day lives).

The argument that they need something more to emphasise holiday periods actually agrees with the point that they think the standard fines don’t seem to be of much use, don’t you think? Anyway, meh…

deye said :

00davist said :

They also have markers now for Arial point to point speed check in NSW, where lines on the road can be used to judge the speed of a vehicle from a chopper.

Introducing new technologies like these to speed detection can help increase accuracy and help keep speeds down (provided of course equipment is maintained and regularly calibrated)

Aerial spotting and markers are old technology and were in use in Australia in the 70’s and 80’s if not earlier, particularly in the outback highways. IIRC they weren’t particularly effective so were cut back or dropped entirely.

There you go, Learn something every day, i wonder why they have appeared over the last couple of years out of the blue on the Hume then…seems odd.

Henry82 said :

gooterz said :

How many cops will this take off the road? if they’re paying for more cameras thats a hit to their budget yeah?

I’m sure these cameras pay for themselves pretty quickly tbh.

See earlier comment by me.
“Less than twelve months” for repaying the capital cost.
Government loves an increase to forward revenue in addition to a same-year 100% return on capital.
Just as driver skills are a factor, well made roads save lives. They just cost a lot more to develop and maintain (which is why the Germans are fiercly proud of the Bundesautobahnen and tend to stick to the advisory speed limits).

The State governments actually make a hefty profit from stationary camera systems, so will do anything they can to increase their scope.
(If it was legal, you’d want a speed camera to your back account too…)

Also, for the “Speeding drivers deserve to die screaming in a fire, anyone claiming that speed in excess of that signposted is harmless is approximately equal to saying that its okay to shake a baby” crowd who demand cited sources:

Australian researchers, Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening (1991)…found a trend of increasing crash involvement for speeds above the mean speed [of traffic] in both rural and urban conditions – similar to the correlations reported in the early studies.
It is important to note that these researchers emphasized speed variance, rather than absolute speed, as the primary culprit in the incidence of crashes; speed variation is defined as a vehicle’s deviation from the mean speed of free-flowing traffic.
…
Crash risk was greatest for vehicles traveling more than two standard deviation above the mean speed. As illustrated in figure 2, the likelihood of being involved in a crash was extremely flat, with little difference in crash risk for vehicles traveling within +/-15 mi/h (25 km/h) of the mean speed of traffic. Even excluding turning crashes, the crash risk for vehicles traveling much faster or slower (than this band) was six times the average rate.

Also, this nice picture from synthesis of A. Cirillo, “Interstate System Accident Research Study II, Interim Report II,” Public Roads, Vol. 35, No. 3, August 1968
and
D. Solomon, “Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver, and Vehicle,” Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, July 1964 (Reprinted 1974).
In which you’re actually safest speeding slightly compared to the rest of traffic.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/98154/images/fig1.gif

Summary
There is evidence that crash risk is lowest near the average speed of traffic and increases for vehicles traveling much[as in significantly] faster or slower than average…however risk of being involved in an injury crash is lowest for vehicles that travel near the median speed of traffic…
Source: Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Limits (United States Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, Virgina)

Note that nowhere in that was a signposted speed mentioned, instead it was relative to the road users and usage patterns.

shadow boxer said :

johnboy said :

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.

haha, that was funny, serioulsy though the Govt could put this whole debte to bed by not having fines and just points.

Fines aren’t really fair anyway, the rich just throw them to their accountant, the poor go without dinner.

I thought the rich pay the fine, but also pay a poor and/or gullible uni student or similar to sign a stat dec saying they were the driver. The money doesn’t matter but the demerit points do.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

And how, pray tell would you fund this ‘greater police presence’?

If the camera’s pay for themselves through fines, then the police can pay for themselves through greater enforcement of all the road rules, not just the narrow focus of speeding.

I don’t generally speed, usually it’s a few k’s over when overtaking a car on a highway. Haven’t had a fine in years…but this, if you read the design study report and some of you have already touched on this, positions the Government for tolls and mass surveillance. It’s interesting that the report also pitches the whole scheme as one which brings tangible benefits to the community in terms of reduced cost due to a reduction in road trauma and associated costs to the community. This being the case, can I expect my annual rates to be reduced?

Mysteryman said :

They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.

Okay let’s see you back this up with some facts. It’s easy to pluck anything out of your backside and throw it on here as some sort of authoritative fact, but I think these “it doesn’t make the roads safer” type comments to whatever speed detection initiatives are mooted are wearing a little thin. Will slowing the 15t truck that came hurling down behind me at about 95kph on Hindmarsh Dr three days ago not increase my safety as a road user??

Come on buddy, you’ve got to do a little better than that if you want to add some meaningful value to this argument.

zippyzippy said :

Mysteryman said :

What makes you say they don’t improve safety? Is there evidence for that? Because everything I’ve seen says that they do improve safety – and this seems to be fairly respectable, independent research.

Any chance you could direct us to where you have read such credible research? Cos I;ve never seen any.

MHW

I am interested in seeing how these change traffic behavior. I predict in the first few weeks/months there will be:

People stopping (or nearly stopping) in front on the second camera when they suddenly realize they have no idea how fast they were going;
A certain proportion of the population rat running through suburbs or some who avoiding the measured stretch of road all together; and
Possibly even some vandalism of the cameras. Or though based on the apathy of the population when it came to vandalizing regular cameras when the first came in, probably not.

I’m guessing there will be the usual outrage, and in the long run people will get over it.

I can’t really see it saving lives though.

gooterz said :

And who’s idea was it to put a giant billboard on the parkway and have it glaring at all hours of the night. If its a really dark night it messes with your eyes and doesnt seem like a safe distraction!

I’m still waiting to see the words “remember, don’t get distracted by anything” written on it…

gooterz said :

How many cops will this take off the road? if they’re paying for more cameras thats a hit to their budget yeah?

I’m sure these cameras pay for themselves pretty quickly tbh.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mysteryman said :

Postalgeek said :

Mysteryman said :

The ACT government has no interest in road safety. If they did, we wouldn’t be seeing point-to-point speed cameras. They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.

They do raise money, however. I really wouldn’t be surprised if incidents of speed camera vandalism increase in the near future.

Your statement is half finished. What’s your solution to the problem of road safety?

My statement was complete. Providing solutions on a forum like this usually just results in responses from trolls like CSRI, so there’s little point. But, since you asked…

Intelligent (and more effective) alternatives have been suggested numerous times in the past. They don’t make as much money, though, so the government doesn’t seem to be interested in them. The most obvious one would be a greater police presence on the road. Police are capable of enforcing a variety of difference laws (including the ones actually responsible for the real safety issues on Canberra roads – like drink driving, mobile phone use while driving, etc) as well as monitoring speeding.

Other suggestions from motoring and road groups like the NRMA have focussed more on training and driver education. Personally, I’m in favour of a greater police presence.

And how, pray tell would you fund this ‘greater police presence’?

That’s not my problem. I’m not the treasurer and I don’t have the time to trawl through the budget looking for money. I would probably start by getting rid of needless and fruitless expenditure though, like the money wasted on Stanhope’s public art installations for example.

00davist said :

They also have markers now for Arial point to point speed check in NSW, where lines on the road can be used to judge the speed of a vehicle from a chopper.

Introducing new technologies like these to speed detection can help increase accuracy and help keep speeds down (provided of course equipment is maintained and regularly calibrated)

Aerial spotting and markers are old technology and were in use in Australia in the 70’s and 80’s if not earlier, particularly in the outback highways. IIRC they weren’t particularly effective so were cut back or dropped entirely.

I’m sure someones bound to try the two back identical number plates and get a fine for travelling in excess of 1000mph!

How many cops will this take off the road? if they’re paying for more cameras thats a hit to their budget yeah? Which means that all the traffic offences that people care about (dangerious and reckless driving) is going to continue unabaited!

Seeing as the two tuggeranong parkway cameras are setup pretty far apart, I’m sure people are going to make a habbit of going up and down the on/off ramp over the cotter or similar to avoid being caught by the camera if they want to speed, or are people that speed and forget about the 2nd camera just going to stop quickly infront of the 2nd and wait a bit.

I’m sure the people of canberra would rather roads be fixed up (properly not the dress the top layer of the road that wears off in months leavingt massive non tractile patches where the top dressing has worn though exposing a smooth tar layer) so that driving at the speed limit was safe.

And who’s idea was it to put a giant billboard on the parkway and have it glaring at all hours of the night. If its a really dark night it messes with your eyes and doesnt seem like a safe distraction!

dpm said :

What’s funnier is that they double points lost during ‘danger’ periods of the year to try to get people to take more care during those times. Seriously, if that works, why not have the points doubled ALL the time? Seems weird to me…..

Because then the extra “risk” over that specific weekend is lost…

Driver training coupled with liberal use of the words “your a bus passanger from now on” by the courts is the only real answer.

The big problem I have with speed camera’s et all is that there can be some very legitimate reasons why you might go a couple of km/h’s over (eg getting out of the way of a driver merging into your lane)… A copper is likely to also see the reason and thus put some context in their decision to fine you or not. A speed camera on the other hand is a simple your over = your done…

Of course all these camera’s do nothing to stop those people who think 160km/h in a 80km/h zone is acceptable, they do nothing to stop someone who has been banned from driving for 10 years from getting behind the wheel and it doesn’t stop the person who does an overtake around a blind corner whilst talking on their mobile phone… Those are the people who are dangers on our roads… Sadly we only find out who they are when bodies are being cut out of wreaked cars…

These won’t help with the Hoons who like the speed; they just get their Kicks, and then pause to keep the right time before the checkpoint, hidden camera’s that can be readily moved are good for these fools!

However its a great measure to reduce a number of other speeding incidents related to people being in a rush, if you want to get there faster, speeding has no effect, as you then have to stop and wait.

These systems are in use in NSW, but only for trucks etc. at this point (though they do log speeding cars, fines are not being issued point to point for cars though) and talks are underway of introducing it for cars there too, as the infrastructure is already widely in place.

They also have markers now for Arial point to point speed check in NSW, where lines on the road can be used to judge the speed of a vehicle from a chopper.

Introducing new technologies like these to speed detection can help increase accuracy and help keep speeds down (provided of course equipment is maintained and regularly calibrated)

Its a positive step toward safer roads. And yes, i would imagine the selection of the locations for cameras on many act roads had this idea in mind a long time ago.

(Mr.G, don’t bother addressing me, I am ignoring idiots and trolls across the board!)

Mysteryman said :

Postalgeek said :

Mysteryman said :

The ACT government has no interest in road safety. If they did, we wouldn’t be seeing point-to-point speed cameras. They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.

They do raise money, however. I really wouldn’t be surprised if incidents of speed camera vandalism increase in the near future.

Your statement is half finished. What’s your solution to the problem of road safety?

My statement was complete. Providing solutions on a forum like this usually just results in responses from trolls like CSRI, so there’s little point. But, since you asked…

Intelligent (and more effective) alternatives have been suggested numerous times in the past. They don’t make as much money, though, so the government doesn’t seem to be interested in them. The most obvious one would be a greater police presence on the road. Police are capable of enforcing a variety of difference laws (including the ones actually responsible for the real safety issues on Canberra roads – like drink driving, mobile phone use while driving, etc) as well as monitoring speeding.

Other suggestions from motoring and road groups like the NRMA have focussed more on training and driver education. Personally, I’m in favour of a greater police presence.

And how, pray tell would you fund this ‘greater police presence’?

Another thing I noticed in that report. It used to be that the road speed was set by the 85 percentile usage. What the report states they want to do is to reduce the 85 percentile speed to the current speed limit. Perhaps they should instead up the speed limit to the 85 percentile.

Postalgeek said :

shadow boxer said :

Fines aren’t really fair anyway, the rich just throw them to their accountant, the poor go without dinner.

If you don’t have the money to eat, but the money to burn excessive fuel by speeding unnecessarily and getting fines, you’re not poor, you’re a fkwit.

sigh, I don’t know why I bother sometimes…..

Mysteryman said :

Intelligent (and more effective) alternatives have been suggested numerous times in the past. They don’t make as much money, though, so the government doesn’t seem to be interested in them. The most obvious one would be a greater police presence on the road. Police are capable of enforcing a variety of difference laws (including the ones actually responsible for the real safety issues on Canberra roads – like drink driving, mobile phone use while driving, etc) as well as monitoring speeding.

Logic such as this never prevails with those making the important decisions. I hate speed cameras and their oh-so-obvious revenue raising. But at least I wouldn’t complain if the revenue raised went to more police, for the reasons Mysteryman raised above.

dpm said :

shadow boxer said :

johnboy said :

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.

haha, that was funny, serioulsy though the Govt could put this whole debte to bed by not having fines and just points.

Fines aren’t really fair anyway, the rich just throw them to their accountant, the poor go without dinner.

What’s funnier is that they double points lost during ‘danger’ periods of the year to try to get people to take more care during those times. Seriously, if that works, why not have the points doubled ALL the time? Seems weird to me…..

Because that takes the emphasis away from the holiday periods. It would be like having a sign for your business stating everything in store is always 50% off – that doesn’t make it a sale, that makes it the everyday price. (I actually saw a sign similar to that somewhere in Europe earlier this year!)

shadow boxer said :

johnboy said :

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.

haha, that was funny, serioulsy though the Govt could put this whole debte to bed by not having fines and just points.

Fines aren’t really fair anyway, the rich just throw them to their accountant, the poor go without dinner.

What’s funnier is that they double points lost during ‘danger’ periods of the year to try to get people to take more care during those times. Seriously, if that works, why not have the points doubled ALL the time? Seems weird to me…..

shadow boxer said :

Fines aren’t really fair anyway, the rich just throw them to their accountant, the poor go without dinner.

If you don’t have the money to eat, but the money to burn excessive fuel by speeding unnecessarily and getting fines, you’re not poor, you’re a fkwit.

Postalgeek said :

Mysteryman said :

The ACT government has no interest in road safety. If they did, we wouldn’t be seeing point-to-point speed cameras. They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.

They do raise money, however. I really wouldn’t be surprised if incidents of speed camera vandalism increase in the near future.

Your statement is half finished. What’s your solution to the problem of road safety?

My statement was complete. Providing solutions on a forum like this usually just results in responses from trolls like CSRI, so there’s little point. But, since you asked…

Intelligent (and more effective) alternatives have been suggested numerous times in the past. They don’t make as much money, though, so the government doesn’t seem to be interested in them. The most obvious one would be a greater police presence on the road. Police are capable of enforcing a variety of difference laws (including the ones actually responsible for the real safety issues on Canberra roads – like drink driving, mobile phone use while driving, etc) as well as monitoring speeding.

Other suggestions from motoring and road groups like the NRMA have focussed more on training and driver education. Personally, I’m in favour of a greater police presence.

Mr Gillespie said :

“It’s all for your own safety of course.”
HA HA HA yeah SHHHHUUURRE!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s revenue-raising, and THAT’S THAT.

However there is a way around these MONGRELS. Here’s how you can STARVE these new revenue-raising machines, and WIN at the same time.

Get a stopwatch. Time how long it takes to drive from the first camera to the second camera. Do what you like then SLOW DOWN before the second camera, to make sure you take at least the time it takes to get through to the second camera so your average speed doesn’t exceed 80km/h.

Do you ever feel that you are embarrasing yourself with posts like this?

Postalgeek said :

Mysteryman said :

The ACT government has no interest in road safety. If they did, we wouldn’t be seeing point-to-point speed cameras. They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.

They do raise money, however. I really wouldn’t be surprised if incidents of speed camera vandalism increase in the near future.

Your statement is half finished. What’s your solution to the problem of road safety?

Come on, he never offers a solution, just the usual, predictable whinge about one aspect of law enforcement.

johnboy said :

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.

haha, that was funny, serioulsy though the Govt could put this whole debte to bed by not having fines and just points.

Fines aren’t really fair anyway, the rich just throw them to their accountant, the poor go without dinner.

johnboy said :

Mr Gillespie said :

“It’s all for your own safety of course.”
HA HA HA yeah SHHHHUUURRE!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s revenue-raising, and THAT’S THAT.

However there is a way around these MONGRELS. Here’s how you can STARVE these new revenue-raising machines, and WIN at the same time.

Get a stopwatch. Time how long it takes to drive from the first camera to the second camera. Do what you like then SLOW DOWN before the second camera, to make sure you take at least the time it takes to get through to the second camera so your average speed doesn’t exceed 80km/h.

Or you could learn to drive.

+1

Or – a novel idea, I know – pay attention to the road instead of speed cameras and stop watches.

But then again, if it weren’t for people like Mr G, we’d all be paying even more ACT taxes!

Bring on the cameras and the revenue raising!

Get a stopwatch. Time how long it takes to drive from the first camera to the second camera. Do what you like then SLOW DOWN before the second camera, to make sure you take at least the time it takes to get through to the second camera so your average speed doesn’t exceed 80km/h.

Um, what’s the point?

to prove that it doesn’t stop speeding.

I like that they have a nice “Crash reduction benefit” formula, yet no where in that document does it list the current number of crashes or fatalities at those sites.

Mr Gillespie said :

“It’s all for your own safety of course.”
HA HA HA yeah SHHHHUUURRE!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s revenue-raising, and THAT’S THAT.

However there is a way around these MONGRELS. Here’s how you can STARVE these new revenue-raising machines, and WIN at the same time.

Get a stopwatch. Time how long it takes to drive from the first camera to the second camera. Do what you like then SLOW DOWN before the second camera, to make sure you take at least the time it takes to get through to the second camera so your average speed doesn’t exceed 80km/h.

Brilliant. You going to repeat that daily, or just starve them of funding for a day?

You’re still not taking your meds.

Mr Gillespie said :

“It’s all for your own safety of course.”
HA HA HA yeah SHHHHUUURRE!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s revenue-raising, and THAT’S THAT.

However there is a way around these MONGRELS. Here’s how you can STARVE these new revenue-raising machines, and WIN at the same time.

Get a stopwatch. Time how long it takes to drive from the first camera to the second camera. Do what you like then SLOW DOWN before the second camera, to make sure you take at least the time it takes to get through to the second camera so your average speed doesn’t exceed 80km/h.

Or you could learn to drive.

Mysteryman said :

They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users..

Surely point-point cameras would force drivers to not speed for a longer distance? And unlike the status quo, people wouldn’t slam on their breaks when passing the first camera?

“It’s all for your own safety of course.”
HA HA HA yeah SHHHHUUURRE!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s revenue-raising, and THAT’S THAT.

However there is a way around these MONGRELS. Here’s how you can STARVE these new revenue-raising machines, and WIN at the same time.

Get a stopwatch. Time how long it takes to drive from the first camera to the second camera. Do what you like then SLOW DOWN before the second camera, to make sure you take at least the time it takes to get through to the second camera so your average speed doesn’t exceed 80km/h.

Mysteryman said :

The ACT government has no interest in road safety. If they did, we wouldn’t be seeing point-to-point speed cameras. They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.
.

What makes you say they don’t improve safety? Is there evidence for that? Because everything I’ve seen says that they do improve safety – and this seems to be fairly respectable, independent research.

Mysteryman said :

The ACT government has no interest in road safety. If they did, we wouldn’t be seeing point-to-point speed cameras. They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.

They do raise money, however. I really wouldn’t be surprised if incidents of speed camera vandalism increase in the near future.

Your statement is half finished. What’s your solution to the problem of road safety?

chewy14 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Cue the hysteria of the ‘it’s my right to break the law because I am an awesome driver and can do it safely’ brigade.

Cue the “speed limits are all perfectly set and the government would never use cameras for revenue raising brigade”.

Oh wait, you’re already here.

How about putting this technology into areas known for higher than average accident rates and high risk (eg school zones)?

Whilst I agree that it’s not hard to drive at the speed limit, it’s hard to see this as anything other than revenue raising with where it’s being deployed.

2 white VN commodores, 2 sets of identical plates…

Speeding fine for Mach 2 in a VN here I come!

The ACT government has no interest in road safety. If they did, we wouldn’t be seeing point-to-point speed cameras. They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.

They do raise money, however. I really wouldn’t be surprised if incidents of speed camera vandalism increase in the near future.

chewy14 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Cue the hysteria of the ‘it’s my right to break the law because I am an awesome driver and can do it safely’ brigade.

Cue the “speed limits are all perfectly set and the government would never use cameras for revenue raising brigade”.

Oh wait, you’re already here.

I quite like the fact that the Govt has such faith in us drivers that they know in advance that they can recoup the capital outlay through fines “in under 12 months”. In other words, they cost in speeding projections into their project budgeting! So funny….!
Imagine if everyone all of a sudden drove at the limit and they got no revenue to pay off the costs….

It woulkd be great if speed limits were set reasonably. Of course this debate could go on forever, but i’m wondering now when the Monaro duplication through Fyshwick is completed, what the speed limit will be, given its 80 now but 100 leading up to the merging lanes.

If they were being consistent it would be 100 all the way through fyshwick to the next intersection where an 80 would be… And then when the majura parkway gets doen it would be 100 the whole way.

I’m not looking to start arguements, but there are plenty or roads in Canberra where the speed limit “could” be higher and thus many people speed on there. No excuse of course. And after seeing how courteous many drivers in Europe are its no wonder we have problems when people are unable to change lanes in Canberra and instead pick a lane and sit in it…. which then forces speeding drivers to become even worse.

These point to points will cause drivers to slow down of course, but we’ll be reading the complaints of people finding drivers realising its point to point and virtually slowing down to 20 below just to make sure, or how about the cautious drivers who seem to slow to 70 on 80 roads when a camera is about….

But I’d rather have these then pay higher rates and rego i guess.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Cue the hysteria of the ‘it’s my right to break the law because I am an awesome driver and can do it safely’ brigade.

Cue the “speed limits are all perfectly set and the government would never use cameras for revenue raising brigade”.

Oh wait, you’re already here.

Jivrashia said :

Isn’t there one already being used on the Federal Highway?
Actually that’s NSW side of the border…
In the news: NSW target ACT drivers to help pay for the massive budget blowout.

Implying NSW drivers who visit Canberra never return home?

Also, there’s a speedtrap near the intersection of the Federal highway and Antill St. Does that mean Canberra is targeting NSW motorists?

MERC600 said :

Well they will make a killing from Hume to Symonston along the Monaro. But won’t this mean that speedy type people will then realise they will need to slow down, ending in a queue of drivers beatling along at say 70 , trying to get their average speed to 80. Causing congestion perhaps.

Or people could just 80 the entire time and then they would be fine *thumbs up*

MERC600 said :

Well they will make a killing from Hume to Symonston along the Monaro. But won’t this mean that speedy type people will then realise they will need to slow down, ending in a queue of drivers beatling along at say 70 , trying to get their average speed to 80. Causing congestion perhaps.

Maybe for a day or two, but what moron would do that every day when they could just drive at 80 the whole distance and get there in the same time? Wait a sec…..

Well they will make a killing from Hume to Symonston along the Monaro. But won’t this mean that speedy type people will then realise they will need to slow down, ending in a queue of drivers beatling along at say 70 , trying to get their average speed to 80. Causing congestion perhaps.

This is proposed first as a speed camera strategy (costing $360,000 per site upfront, but has an element on Pg10 of the Forward Design Study stating “However, analysis suggests that depending upon traffic volumes and infringement rates the revenue from infringement notices are likely to repay the capital costs of the roadside infrastructure in under 12 months.”).
Within that same doucment, it identifies the intention to become the eyes-and-ears of both the proposed ACT Traffic Management Centre, and provide immediate speed-offence recognition, but with a bonus (highly costly and development likelyhood undetermined) element providing ACT Policing with Non-Traffic Related Offence Interrogability support, and “Mass Survellance” capacity.

(IE: “Did car with registration YXX-999 drive between Tuggeranong, Civic or Gungahlin by any route recently?”)

Good luck to the ACT Government when they immediately fail a privacy audit if they pursue either of those further options.

@Primal:
That would be a Safe-T-Cam at Marulan.

Hey, here’s an idea, let’s have another debate about speeding and speed cameras! It’s been a few days…. Mr G?

Isn’t there one already being used on the Federal Highway?
Actually that’s NSW side of the border…

…

In the news: NSW target ACT drivers to help pay for the massive budget blowout.

and of course people in stolen cars will immediately stick to the speed limit…..

Lets hope they are more accurate than the ones on the Hume Hwy

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/our-dud-speed-cameras/story-fn7x8me2-1226080249071

Speed cameras on the Hume Highway will be switched off indefinitely after a top-level inquiry found drivers were wrongly booked.
A hi-tech fault led to fines being wrongly issued nine times, according to a $131,000 report by top accounting firm Deloitte that was released to the Herald Sun last night.
Thousands of motorists pass the disabled point-to-point cameras every day.
RACV general manager of public policy Brian Negus told heraldsun.com.au this morning the introduction of an independent road-safety commissioner was the vital link in addressing the problem.
“I think it’s really important that the credibility of speed cameras is restored,” he said.

Mr Negus said the commissioner was the best way to assure the public the issue of faulty cameras was being taken seriously.
“That’s a critical link in the whole debate,” he said.
The report found the false bookings happened because the time on a camera clock was out of synchronisation with its global positioning system’s time.

Cameras at the centre of the investigation imposed 3657 fines in the three months to June last year, reaping an average minimum of $53,000 a week.

The point-to-point system records vehicle details and the time it takes to pass between cameras.

Critics said the system was less trustworthy than fixed cameras because it did not have the same capability to check for mistakes.

Speed camera crusader John King, who won a court battle against a fine in 2007, said his trust in the system had not been restored.

“If they switch them back on, they’re open to the same problems,” he said. “The truth is, how to we know (they are accurate)?”

The Deloitte investigation was sparked when a Wallan woman was served with an impoundment notice after being clocked travelling at 154km/h in a 110km/h zone in a Mazda 2.

The P-plater, who faced a 12-month licence suspension, was able to persuade a local police officer she was telling the truth.

The finding could impede any legal action launched by motorists claiming they had been wrongly fined.

Results of the report have been passed to the Auditor-General, who is investigating the state’s speed-camera network.

No decision will be made on returning the Hume Highway cameras to operation until the Auditor-General hands down his report, expected in September.

Police Minister Peter Ryan said most of the $131,000 cost of the Deloitte report had been covered by a fine on the operator Redflex.

The Government last month introduced legislation to appoint an independent road-safety camera commissioner.

Victoria’s speed camera system has been bedevilled by problems for years.

More than $13 million in fines was refunded over 19 faulty cameras on Western Ring Road in 2003.

In 2006, cameras on West Gate Bridge were shut down amid worries about the quality of images.

Many drivers continue to dispute fines from cameras on the EastLink freeway.

Hopefully this will slow down some of the morons on Hindmarsh that think 110 in an 80 zone is okay.

Cue the hysteria of the ‘it’s my right to break the law because I am an awesome driver and can do it safely’ brigade.

Last time I drove back from Sydney I saw (one part of) what appeared to be a point-to-point camera setup at the Truck Weigh Station near Marulan. Are these operating in NSW already or was I seeing things?

I now feel a little bit justified in being suspicious of the layout of the cameras along the Monaro, Parkway and Barton highways when they were first installed. If this wasn’t a long term idea that someone had back then, I’ll be amazed.

I will now expect far greater speed camera vandalisation and number plate obfuscation too, of course.