Advertisement

The spread of the mobile speed cameras

By 2 February 2011 66

Chiefly Stanhope is informing us that he’s throwing the mobile speed camera net ever wider:

Road safety will be further improved through an increase to the number of sites where Canberra’s mobile speed cameras can operate from, Chief Minister and Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Jon Stanhope, said today.

“Improving road safety is a major focus of this Government and expanding the number of mobile speed camera sites will help make our roads a safer place,” Mr Stanhope said.

“This move follows input from members of the community who have raised concerns about speeding on certain roads. As a result, the Government has assessed sections of 67 roads of which 61 new sections of road have been assessed as suitable for mobile speed camera operation.

“These additional locations bring the total number to 177 and will allow us to use the five mobile speed cameras in a greater variety of strategic to address road safety concerns.”

I feel safer already! Do you?

Please login to post your comments
66 Responses to The spread of the mobile speed cameras
#1
Swaggie10:53 am, 02 Feb 11

a what? “in a greater variety of strategic to address road safety concerns”

#2
Erg011:29 am, 02 Feb 11
#3
Erg011:46 am, 02 Feb 11

…and sadly it now includes two streets from my regular rat run, neither of which I’ve ever seen an accident on in 500+ trips. Still, must get everyone under that magic number!

#4
Mysteryman12:14 pm, 02 Feb 11

“REVENUE will be further INCREASED through an increase to the number of sites where Canberra’s mobile speed cameras can operate from, Chief Minister and Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Jon Stanhope, said today.”

Call it what it is, Stanhopeless. You won’t make anything safer with more speed cameras. Stop lying to us.

#5
la mente torbida12:22 pm, 02 Feb 11

If you don’t speed, it’s not an issue.

#6
Tooks12:34 pm, 02 Feb 11

Of course they’re going to keep increasing the numbers of mobile speed cameras. As long as dimwits keep speeding through them and volunteering their hard-earned to the Govt, they’d be stupid not to.

If you are caught by a speed camera, then you’re driving with your head up your arse. To me, that’s more of a concern than the speeding itself.

#7
Lin1:23 pm, 02 Feb 11

Hear, hear to the last 2 comments!

I wish they would use those cameras more in 50kph residential streets. I don’t care that much if someone wants to go 200kph on the highway, but if they speed through our local streets where kids and pets get a false sense of security, I start foaming at the mouth.

#8
Thoroughly Smashed2:32 pm, 02 Feb 11

Tooks said :

Of course they’re going to keep increasing the numbers of mobile speed cameras. As long as dimwits keep speeding through them and volunteering their hard-earned to the Govt, they’d be stupid not to.

If you are caught by a speed camera, then you’re driving with your head up your arse. To me, that’s more of a concern than the speeding itself.

#9
Braddon Boy3:10 pm, 02 Feb 11

Think of it as an idiot tax. If you get caught speeding by cameras, you must be an idiot. Therefore you should pay more tax.

For too long my taxes have gone to support stupid people through public liability and everything being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Or lately, building homes on flood plains that my government then pays for. It’s about time they gave something back.

The speed cameras also serve a secondary purpose. You can tell who these idiots are!!! Because they are the ones that complain the loudest. They don’t seem to realise that the more that other people pay to the government, especially for consolidated revenue, means more services for them for no additional cost.

** I’m not saying that all people who live on flood plains get caught by speed cameras. Nor am I saying that all those who get caught by speed cameras live on flood plains. What I am saying is, both groups are idiots. Therefore for the sake of the argument they are all tared with the same brush.

#10
colourful sydney rac3:19 pm, 02 Feb 11

la mente torbida said :

If you don’t speed, it’s not an issue.

Tooks said :

Of course they’re going to keep increasing the numbers of mobile speed cameras. As long as dimwits keep speeding through them and volunteering their hard-earned to the Govt, they’d be stupid not to.

If you are caught by a speed camera, then you’re driving with your head up your arse. To me, that’s more of a concern than the speeding itself.

exactly.

#11
Erg03:43 pm, 02 Feb 11

Indeed, it is basically a penalty for lack of situational awareness. My annoyance has more to do with the likelihood of getting stuck behind morons who sit 10km/h under the limit at all times because they’re terrified of getting a fine. The net effect on my own driving will be pretty minimal.

#12
Felix4:16 pm, 02 Feb 11

It’s all a bit depressingly obvious isn’t it – much as Braddon Boy suggests.

I’d be open to an argument that there may be too many different speed zones in the ACT (50, 60, 70, 80 and 100 k I know of, but there may be more I’ve missed) – possibly some danger that you spend too much time looking at the speedo and too little on the actual road – might be case for simplifying things a bit, but there is absolutely no case for any sympathy towards anyone dim enough to get caught by this very open system…

Bring on the extra revenue. Maybe we could use some of it to establish a decent public transport system?

#13
Solidarity4:25 pm, 02 Feb 11

Are all vans operational, or are some just ornamental? I’ve had many “oh sh*t” moments when passing a speed van, but have never been pinged by one…

#14
john87_no14:33 pm, 02 Feb 11

I hate this place.

#15
john87_no14:38 pm, 02 Feb 11

It doesn’t even list how they came to the conclusion that all those areas are speed camera worthy.

I would like to see evidence on what research was completed?

#16
Skidbladnir5:00 pm, 02 Feb 11

As much as I hate to defend anyone caught speeding you may remember the pointless policy flowchart which defines the ACT Road Safety development strategy.

One of its three points of washing-machine is a conclusion,”lower speeds are more forgiving of human error”, since somebody in TAMS forwent(1) doing actual research, in favour of greater revenue.

The ACT could calculate road safety using the US & German highway methodolgy, but we’d immediately lose Federal Transport & roads funding.

Australian researchers, Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening (1991)…found a trend of increasing crash involvement for speeds above the mean speed [of traffi]c in both rural and urban conditions – similar to the correlations reported in the early studies.
It is important to note that the 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 faster or slower than average… 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)

(1): Its a word, mofo.

#17
georgesgenitals5:22 pm, 02 Feb 11

Of course it’s an idiot tax. Now, if we could just use them for road safety as well, we’d be sorted.

#18
pollyanna5:46 pm, 02 Feb 11

Speeding is not the only, or biggest problem.

CRK was in court recently for trying to out run police in a stolen car (again, how many times?), he hit a car with a Mum and 2 children.

Jon, as well as “Drink drive die in a ditch” signs what about some signs that in the ACT we let repeat car thieves and chase fools out and we are at risk of them killing us.

#19
goggles136:09 pm, 02 Feb 11

they are not increasing the number of cameras, just the locations.

not sure how this will help road safety. it means that a camera will less often be in a location where it may “help” road safety.

#20
TP 30007:23 pm, 02 Feb 11

If the Government is serious about road safety, why don’t we see point to point speed cameras in school, with a normal speed camera in the middle? Why don’t we red light & speed cameras at every controlled intersection in the ACT?

I have noticed that the location on that list include locations where the Police use to hide & catch culprits. The Police will have to work out a way to nab 20 drivers an hour with one car if they won’t to stay on traffic duties.

#21
shadow boxer7:28 pm, 02 Feb 11

#sigh#, are people really that simple ?

I think the lowest common demoninator certainly came out in the last few posts

#22
zig8:16 pm, 02 Feb 11

But….once they stop collecting enough “extra tax” via speed cameras, they’ll lower the speed limits again…so we’ll all be driving around at 40km/h on roads built for 100km/h because of lycra wearing idiots who think they are stronger than cars.

For the record, the last speeding fine I got was in 2001 and I was let off by writing a nice letter.

#23
olfella8:38 pm, 02 Feb 11

la mente torbida said :

If you don’t speed, it’s not an issue.

That is the most stupid comment I always hear when cameras are mentioned. What a load of bullshit!! Would it not be better to put more police patrols on the road and catch motorist for other offences besides speeding? If everyone is like me we can do what ever we like on the road EXCEPT speed past a mobile camera.

#24
deye9:22 pm, 02 Feb 11

Mysteryman said :

You won’t make anything safer with more speed cameras. Stop lying to us.

They aren’t adding cameras, just places they can set them up. It means they are spreading them thinner.

#25
Mr Gillespie9:39 pm, 02 Feb 11

la mente torbida said :

If you don’t speed, it’s not an issue.

That convenient copout doesn’t hold water I’m afraid.

Next…….

Tooks said :

Of course they’re going to keep increasing the numbers of mobile speed cameras. As long as dimwits keep speeding through them and volunteering their hard-earned to the Govt, they’d be stupid not to.

If you are caught by a speed camera, then you’re driving with your head up your arse. To me, that’s more of a concern than the speeding itself.

Dimwits who do just a few ks over and “volunteer” (correction — COERCED) into giving to the government in fines.

You are driving your head up your arse by condoning the use of these devices.

Next………….

Braddon Boy said :

Think of it as an idiot tax. If you get caught speeding by cameras, you must be an idiot. Therefore you should pay more tax.

For too long my taxes have gone to support stupid people through public liability and everything being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Or lately, building homes on flood plains that my government then pays for. It’s about time they gave something back.

The speed cameras also serve a secondary purpose. You can tell who these idiots are!!! Because they are the ones that complain the loudest. They don’t seem to realise that the more that other people pay to the government, especially for consolidated revenue, means more services for them for no additional cost.

** I’m not saying that all people who live on flood plains get caught by speed cameras. Nor am I saying that all those who get caught by speed cameras live on flood plains. What I am saying is, both groups are idiots. Therefore for the sake of the argument they are all tared with the same brush.

Yeah, “idiot tax” now when was the last time I heard that excuse for these revenue-raising machines.

The idiots are the ones who really believe speed cameras reduce the road toll.

Sure enough you’d have to be a mug to speed through a fixed speed camera site well-advertised with signage (THAT is an “idiot tax”), but it’s the mobile speed camera vans that have a habit of lurking around corners and over hills that are the problem. As soon as you see one, you have to slam on your brakes and PRAY for the next God knows how long you never get a ticket.

Also come to think of it, why is it the first sign that you have been photographed by those mobile vans is weeks later when it finally arrives in the mail??? Hm???

#26
Trad_and_Anon12:22 am, 03 Feb 11

Speed cameras prevented a lot of accidents over the past years – like that idiot who took out his girlfriend and friend near Fyshwick when pursued by police; or the moron who killed that young woman in civic and who has just again been done for various forms of criminality.
I keep to the speed limit but what about the tailgating young P platers, males and females and the cretins driving Holden utes and various vans – where are the speed cameras then?
Some people go over the limit through inattention or simple error. The police should be focusing on poor driving.
The new cameras are just revenue raising.

#27
Trad_and_Anon12:31 am, 03 Feb 11

Trad_and_Anon said :

Speed cameras prevented a lot of accidents over the past years – like that idiot who took out his girlfriend and friend near Fyshwick when pursued by police; or the moron who killed that young woman in civic and who has just again been done for various forms of criminality.
I keep to the speed limit but what about the tailgating young P platers, males and females and the cretins driving Holden utes and various vans – where are the speed cameras then?
Some people go over the limit through inattention or simple error. The police should be focusing on poor driving.
The new cameras are just revenue raising.

#28
Ozi1:22 am, 03 Feb 11

Mr Gillespie said :

Sure enough you’d have to be a mug to speed through a fixed speed camera site well-advertised with signage (THAT is an “idiot tax”), but it’s the mobile speed camera vans that have a habit of lurking around corners and over hills that are the problem. As soon as you see one, you have to slam on your brakes and PRAY for the next God knows how long you never get a ticket.

Also come to think of it, why is it the first sign that you have been photographed by those mobile vans is weeks later when it finally arrives in the mail??? Hm???

Are you kidding me?! Three pertinant points here:

(1) If you aren’t speeding you don’t have to “slam on your brakes” because you aren’t speeding. Pretty self explanatory that one, in fact the logic is unfaultable. Also, if you are praying to various deities out of fear of a speeding ticket, why not save your pretty, sensitive soul all this stress by not speeding in the first place?! Not only will your blood pressure drop, but you will stop spamming some poor god/allah/buddah/golden statue with your whingeing.

(2) Canberran mobile camera vans are huge, white Mercedes Vito vans. With signs on top. Advertising they are speed vans. They are, hands down, the most laughable excuses for speed cameras I have seen in the 3 different states I have resided. In Melbourne, they will use unmarked, older cars, or hide in driveways, or put p-plates on the cars; in short, they do anything they like to catch you. Canberra has it pretty good!

(3) The first sign you were caught by a speeding van in Canberra is not the ticket in the mail. It is the fact that you have a double digit IQ and when you look at your speedo as you go past a van it is more than the speed limit.

I agree that speeding fines from fixed and mobile cameras are an idiot tax. I heartily support this tax continuing. Should there be more cops on the road? Yes. Likewise, there should be less whinging Canberrans who have no idea how good they have it, and how freaking easy it is to avoid getting a ticket.

#29
bigfeet7:00 am, 03 Feb 11

Mr Gillespie said :

As soon as you see one, you have to slam on your brakes and PRAY for the next God knows how long you never get a ticket.

No you don’t. You only have to do this if you are breaking the law.

Don’t like the law? That’s fine. Why not try to have it changed then, there are many lawful ways to do this: Form a lobby group, hold rallies, petetion politicians, get yourself elected to the Legislative Assembly, or vote for a party that has the same views as you.

Breaking the law just because you don’t think it is relevant and then whinging about it when you have to pay the penalty for your own deliberate actions just proves that this is only a tax on idiots.

#30
Jim Jones9:02 am, 03 Feb 11

Mr Gillespie said :

it’s the mobile speed camera vans that have a habit of lurking around corners and over hills that are the problem. As soon as you see one, you have to slam on your brakes and PRAY for the next God knows how long you never get a ticket.

Truly epic fail!!!

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