Advertisement

Speed Camera Slam

By 21 March 2014 25

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-speed-cameras-slammed-in-report-20140320-355a7.html

In the biggest surprise od the century turns out our speed cameras are rather defective, useless at reducing speed, unplanned and only designed around the budget and not safety.

Its the hospital waiting times on wheels.


“There is no strategic basis for making decisions for integrating the use of the ACT’s four speed camera systems as the ACT Government does not have a speed camera strategy and its draft ACT road safety camera strategy is not a strategy,” Dr Cooper said.

Please login to post your comments
25 Responses to Speed Camera Slam
#1
magiccar99:02 pm, 21 Mar 14

Certainly didn’t prevent the rear-ender on Hindmarsh/Yamba Drive intersection (red light and speed camera intersection) on Wednesday afternoon. Old lady hits the brakes for orange light, is hit from behind by P-plater, but of course the cameras PREVENT crashes right? Also another thing I was appalled at from this incident was that when the police showed up (most of the accident had already been cleared by the firefighters), they blocked the only lane that had moving traffic – in peak hour – for absolutely no reason.

It’ll be high time that actual consideration is put into the cameras for once, instead of just bunging them here, there, and everywhere that someone has a whinge.

On a side note, has anyone seen any speed vans recently? I haven’t seen one in the last 6 or so months….

#2
house_husband10:11 pm, 21 Mar 14

About time the fraud of “evidence based road safety” was exposed for what it is. A badly planned series of knee jerk reactions whose real purpose is to raise revenue and even then they can’t get that quite right with cost blowouts.

The Forward Design Study for point to point cameras was a classic case of a consultant giving the government customer the answer they wanted.

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

#3
milkman10:18 pm, 21 Mar 14

If we used cameras in places where speed was actually a regular factor in accidents, as opposed to say, wildlife (e.g. hindmarsh drive), then I’d be all for them.

#4
goggles1310:35 pm, 21 Mar 14

well the results of this study are a surprise…..NOT

in the ACT Govt’s defence, it is not the only jurisdiction seduced by the revenue raised by speed cameras being masqueraded as “road safety devices”

another report shows that the road toll has actually gone up in NSW and VIC despite the existence of cameras

http://www.carsales.com.au/news/road-deaths-surge-in-nsw-and-vic-42348?R=42348&Cr=35&surl=aHR0cDovL2VkaXRvcmlhbHN5c3RlbS5jYXJzYWxlcy5jb20uYXUvRGVza3RvcERlZmF1bHQuYXNweD9UYWJJRD0xNDA4NjEwJk5vPTIwJlFwYj0xJm51bT0yMCZOPTI5ODErNDI5NDk2NzI4Mis0Mjk0OTY3Mjc5JnNpZD0xNDI0M0RDMjYyQjgmTm5lPTIwJk5zPXBfRGF0ZUF2YWlsYWJsZV9EYXRlVGltZSU3QzE.

#5
EvanJames11:12 pm, 21 Mar 14

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

#6
HiddenDragon11:29 am, 22 Mar 14

EvanJames said :

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

Interestingly, the Hindmarsh Drive point-to-point cameras seem to have reduced aggression and tailgating on the relevant section of that road; if the limit there was a little higher – 90, or even 85 (which would still be less than what was typical in earlier days) – it would be a double plus.

Other than this, there was nothing surprising in the reported excerpts of the audit, and in answer to magiccar9′s question, the speed vans are still out and about – typically in locations which suggest easy revenue, rather than safety, as being the priority.

#7
gooterz12:22 pm, 22 Mar 14

HiddenDragon said :

EvanJames said :

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

Interestingly, the Hindmarsh Drive point-to-point cameras seem to have reduced aggression and tailgating on the relevant section of that road; if the limit there was a little higher – 90, or even 85 (which would still be less than what was typical in earlier days) – it would be a double plus.

Other than this, there was nothing surprising in the reported excerpts of the audit, and in answer to magiccar9′s question, the speed vans are still out and about – typically in locations which suggest easy revenue, rather than safety, as being the priority.

One thing I can’t get stand is that the speed limits don’t factor speed increase from the hills. Should be slower on the top then have an increase down the bottom.
Also the speed going uphill is less important than speed downhill as you have many times more breaking power going up hill. Yet speed limits each side of the road should be the same.

#8
Sandman6:04 pm, 22 Mar 14

I’m all for the revenue raising aspect of speed cameras. It’s a tax on the stupid, and it works. I really don’t see a problem.

#9
bigfeet6:16 pm, 22 Mar 14

Sandman said :

I’m all for the revenue raising aspect of speed cameras. It’s a tax on the stupid, and it works. I really don’t see a problem.

Got to agree with you. Just market them as a revenue raising device and forget pretending that they are a safety instrument.

The speed limits are clearly posted and known. The fixed cameras have piles of warning that they are ahead. The vans stand out like dogs balls, if you can’t see them up ahead you really shouldn’t be on the road.

Hell, I would support devices being installed on every car that automatically send you a ticket every single time you go over the speed limit.

As for whether the actual speed limits are correct for different stretches of road…that is a different discussion. There are ways to change laws but arbitrarily breaking them is not one of them.

Only absolute idiots have to pay this particular tax.

#10
gooterz6:31 pm, 22 Mar 14

bigfeet said :

Only absolute idiots have to pay this particular tax.

Its also a tourist tax…

Welcome to Canberra, have a fine or 3, come back soon..

What a joke.

If they published a list of repeat speeders, who had lost their licences it’d be a different ballgame.

#11
bigfeet6:44 pm, 22 Mar 14

gooterz said :

bigfeet said :

Only absolute idiots have to pay this particular tax.

Its also a tourist tax…

Welcome to Canberra, have a fine or 3, come back soon..

I must have missed the bit in the road rules which states that tourists are exempt from following the laws.

What other laws are they exempt from? Red lights? Shoplifting? Drink Driving?

Does this apply to me if I am a tourist somewhere else?

Handy to know.

#12
Tooks7:59 pm, 22 Mar 14

EvanJames said :

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

What a load of crap. Tailgaters are frequently fined, especially if they cause a prang.

#13
gooterz9:05 pm, 22 Mar 14

bigfeet said :

gooterz said :

bigfeet said :

Only absolute idiots have to pay this particular tax.

Its also a tourist tax…

Welcome to Canberra, have a fine or 3, come back soon..

I must have missed the bit in the road rules which states that tourists are exempt from following the laws.

What other laws are they exempt from?

Red lights? Shoplifting? Drink Driving?

Does this apply to me if I am a tourist somewhere else?

Handy to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

#14
bigred10:52 pm, 22 Mar 14

Tooks said :

EvanJames said :

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

What a load of crap. Tailgaters are frequently fined, especially if they cause a prang.

Never met anyone who has been fined for tailgating. You really are full of it!

#15
bigfeet12:12 am, 23 Mar 14

gooterz said :

bigfeet said :

gooterz said :

bigfeet said :

Only absolute idiots have to pay this particular tax.

Its also a tourist tax…

Welcome to Canberra, have a fine or 3, come back soon..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

Yes thanks . I actually did notice that you introduced a non-sequitur. I wondered why you tried to link those two concepts but now I see you have also realised your error.

Well done.

#16
Mysteryman8:50 am, 23 Mar 14

Anyone who thought speed cameras in the ACT were there for “road safety” is a bigger idiot than the people who put them there. Right after the announcement of more speed cameras in 2008, I think it was, I looked up the statistics regarding crashes and fatalities before and after their introduction. The numbers suggested that their presence has NO positive impact. More detailed numbers actually showed that speed was the determining factor in less than 25% of fatalities in the ACT. Alcohol/drugs and elderly drivers accounted for the vast percentage. I emailed the information to Stanhopeless and asked him what he planned on doing about the real issues on the road, since speed cameras were clearly just money makers.

He emailed back some horse-crap about being committed to road safety and that *his* information clearly showed that the cameras worked. I requested a copy of this information because I didn’t believe it. Surprise, surprise; I never received it. He knew it was bullshit at the time. But, being the outrageously arrogant and ignorant CM that he was, figured he could just make up whatever justification he wanted and people would believe it.

And people in the ACT did, because an ounce of critical thinking and some common sense is too much for most of them.

#17
gooterz10:29 am, 23 Mar 14

bigfeet said :

gooterz said :

bigfeet said :

gooterz said :

bigfeet said :

Only absolute idiots have to pay this particular tax.

Its also a tourist tax…

Welcome to Canberra, have a fine or 3, come back soon..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

Yes thanks . I actually did notice that you introduced a non-sequitur. I wondered why you tried to link those two concepts but now I see you have also realised your error.

Well done.

To explain the logic that you missed.. tourists wont know where the cameras are. Anyone coming from Sydney will probably miss the signs their first time.

#18
bigfeet11:13 am, 23 Mar 14

gooterz said :

To explain the logic that you missed.. tourists wont know where the cameras are. Anyone coming from Sydney will probably miss the signs their first time.

Anyone who can’t see the massive signs warning you that there is a speed camera ahead really shouldn’t have a drivers license.

We are all safer if they are off the road.

#19
switch12:31 pm, 23 Mar 14

gooterz said :

To explain the logic that you missed.. tourists wont know where the cameras are. Anyone coming from Sydney will probably miss the signs their first time.

Then they should “hand in their licence NOW!”

#20
EvanJames2:41 pm, 23 Mar 14

Tooks said :

EvanJames said :

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

What a load of crap. Tailgaters are frequently fined, especially if they cause a prang.

Ha ha, you mean that because the person who crashed into someone’s rear gets a ticket, therefore tailgaters are fined?

does anyone here know of anyone ever being pinged for tailgating, without being in an accident? I bet they don’t. Another one in the too hard basket for our invisible “police”.

#21
house_husband9:01 pm, 23 Mar 14

EvanJames said :

Ha ha, you mean that because the person who crashed into someone’s rear gets a ticket, therefore tailgaters are fined?

does anyone here know of anyone ever being pinged for tailgating, without being in an accident? I bet they don’t. Another one in the too hard basket for our invisible “police”.

I know for sure the person who ran into the back of my car a few years back causing several thousand dollars damage never received a ticket. She admitted fault, there were photos and a police report.

Since then I’ve heard a lot of similar stories. If police attend the accident you might get a ticket but anything reported directly to them appears to be discretionary.

#22
bigred10:45 pm, 23 Mar 14

Face facts. Speed cameras are in place because plod refuses to enforce the speed limits, or any other road rules.

#23
milkman6:49 am, 24 Mar 14

EvanJames said :

Tooks said :

EvanJames said :

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

What a load of crap. Tailgaters are frequently fined, especially if they cause a prang.

Ha ha, you mean that because the person who crashed into someone’s rear gets a ticket, therefore tailgaters are fined?

does anyone here know of anyone ever being pinged for tailgating, without being in an accident? I bet they don’t. Another one in the too hard basket for our invisible “police”.

If tailgating and lane hogging were being enforced in any way at all then I don’t think we’d see so much of it. It is very common.

#24
goggles137:10 am, 24 Mar 14

bigred said :

Face facts. Speed cameras are in place because plod refuses to enforce the speed limits, or any other road rules.

not true.

they are in place because they are a source of revenue for lazy governments who lack the imagination and balls to implement proper driver education and active enforcement of road rules.

#25
shirty_bear2:33 pm, 25 Mar 14

EvanJames said :

Tooks said :

EvanJames said :

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

What a load of crap. Tailgaters are frequently fined, especially if they cause a prang.

Ha ha, you mean that because the person who crashed into someone’s rear gets a ticket, therefore tailgaters are fined?

does anyone here know of anyone ever being pinged for tailgating, without being in an accident? I bet they don’t. Another one in the too hard basket for our invisible “police”.

Well, surely said act of tailgating would have to be directly observed by the plod in order to attract any sort of disciplinary response? So … no.

I think we’ve all grown weary of agreeing that the only real deterrent to bad/unsafe/illegal driving is a visible Police presence on the roads. Until that happens, carry on.

(Amusingly, nowadays whenever one does see a rozzer on the road, they’re just mobile tripods for other cameras – the RAPID units, which, for mine, are an excellent start.)

Oh, and best you don’t say anything critical of the Police while Tooks is watching – he doesn’t like it one iota.

Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.