26 August 2011

Amber light for point to point cameras

| johnboy
Join the conversation
29

The Greens’ Amanda Bresnan has announced they’ll support point to point cameras in the ACT, but with some conditions.

The Greens have given in-principle support to the use of point to point cameras in the ACT, guaranteeing that they can be used for important road safety measures.

However, the Greens deferred final approval of the legislation, calling for controversial and little-known aspects of the legislation to be subject to wider community debate and human rights analysis.

“For the Greens, speed cameras are very much about road safety. We support new initiatives and new technologies that will help to keep ACT road users safe, and will contribute to a reduction in deaths and injuries that occur on our roads each year,” said Greens Transport spokesperson, Amanda Bresnan MLA.

“Our concern was that some quite controversial uses of collected data were put to the Parliament that were not discussed with the public or properly subjected to privacy and human rights analyses.

“I have written to the ACT Human Rights Commissioner, asking for an analysis of these issues. This is something the Government should have done at the beginning.

Join the conversation

29
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

Privacy issues or no issues at all- they have started the works already, before the legislation is passed, so the title of the post can be read as “Green light….”.

A much simpler way to implement whatever it is they want to implement, would be to remove the warning signs about speed cameras, and tow the cameras around, hiding them in new and unsignposted spots. They’d catch heaps that way.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

GottaLoveCanberra said :

Erg0 said :

Which part of Hindmarsh is it, exactly?

This is the rough stretch of road from the plan I have seen through work.

http://imageshack.us/f/842/clipboard02rq.jpg/

I drove through there the other day, they’ve got the detector loops cut in pretty much those locations, just set far back from the intersections enough to minimise the effect of queuing (presumably).

Yep, saw them on the weekend myself. So, pretty much just the stratch of road that goes over the hill, which was my initial suspicion. Looking forward to riding my brakes all the way down there in the near future.

Thoroughly Smashed9:34 am 05 Sep 11

GottaLoveCanberra said :

Erg0 said :

Which part of Hindmarsh is it, exactly?

This is the rough stretch of road from the plan I have seen through work.

http://imageshack.us/f/842/clipboard02rq.jpg/

I drove through there the other day, they’ve got the detector loops cut in pretty much those locations, just set far back from the intersections enough to minimise the effect of queuing (presumably).

more people die waiting for a hospital bed than die on our roads. How about doing something about that you bunch of boneheads.

For every article I see claiming a link between speed cameras and reduced accident rates, there’s at least two articles proclaiming a link between speed cameras and increased accident rates.

IMHO, if we are concerned about minor crimes we need to have police out there policing the laws. Clamp down on minor crime and, according to the NY experience at least, the major crimes don’t happen so much. Well, at least not in your jurisdiction 🙂

Police presence, not revenue-raising robots, is what will reduce infringement rates. But then this government has included expected speeding fine revenue in their budget. I don’t think they’re in any hurry to make our roads safer.

fgzk said :

I think the point is pointing not at the “point to point” speed cameras but the data generated by all traffic cameras

Actually, the reason this has focussed more on Point to Point, is that the data in question is NOT captured by all traffic camera’s.

Speed camera’s only activate if you are speeding, if you drive past not speeding, NO data is captured, Red light cameras are the same, the only time they take a happy snap, is if you run the red.

Point to Point Camera’s photograh each and every vehicle passing through, and analyse the plate to get a read, so that they can then compare it to the same car when you pass through camera two.

The data being reffered to is the photographs and registrations of those who have broken the law, and therefore have no need to have said data recorded.

The data can be used to prove where somone was on a particular day, on a particular time, currently, traffic camera data can only provide this information if you break the law, what they are saying here is, p2p would make this data just for driving down the road.

There is plenty of reliable peer reviewed research to show that speeding significantly increases the number of ‘accidents’ and their severity. Establishing an overall habit of traffic law observance will improve every road. Not just the few meters around a speed camera zone. I’ve noticed a clear calming down of roads since speed cameras and camera vans were introduced. The more automation we have in law enforcement the more resources we can divert to difficult crimes.

GottaLoveCanberra7:30 pm 26 Aug 11

Erg0 said :

Which part of Hindmarsh is it, exactly?

This is the rough stretch of road from the plan I have seen through work.

http://imageshack.us/f/842/clipboard02rq.jpg/

I don’t think point to point cameras are going to help much, especially when you look at where they want to put them initially.

Thoroughly Smashed4:37 pm 26 Aug 11

Erg0 said :

Kim F said :

Well, the first approved spot is on Hindmarsh Drive. The flaw in their cunning plan is there is more than one set of traffic lights on the stretch of road earmarked for the cameras. Catch one red light and you’ll need to do some impressive work to get your average up and over the limit!

Which part of Hindmarsh is it, exactly?

The section being talked about is still “Yamba Drive to Monaro Highway”.

Which is interesting, because there are three signalised intersections between those two roads. They might be planning to narrow it down in the future, or perhaps they really are going to do that and the only way you can get caught is if you’re speeding AND get all three green lights. This would all but preclude peak hour, but would still be more likely to catch drivers speeding outside these periods, particularly at night.

I think the point is pointing not at the “point to point” speed cameras but the data generated by all traffic cameras. The point being, how long that data is kept and who gets to use it. The endless argument over speed cameras safety effects is pointless. Pointing out the obvious privacy concerns seems to go over everyone head. Its all good till some one points the finger and uses the data available from cameras to push their own moral/political agenda. Will we see the data gathered used for political point scoring?

I think most of you have missed the point.

Kim F said :

Well, the first approved spot is on Hindmarsh Drive. The flaw in their cunning plan is there is more than one set of traffic lights on the stretch of road earmarked for the cameras. Catch one red light and you’ll need to do some impressive work to get your average up and over the limit!

Which part of Hindmarsh is it, exactly?

Well, the first approved spot is on Hindmarsh Drive. The flaw in their cunning plan is there is more than one set of traffic lights on the stretch of road earmarked for the cameras. Catch one red light and you’ll need to do some impressive work to get your average up and over the limit!

If they really did make the roads safer I’d be happy for them to go in. But they won’t.
Also love to see the statistics for accidents caused by speeding and whether using a phone, or drink driving were also involved and at what speed these fatalities occurred at.

The real issue is there are many repeat offenders allowed to drive again and again.

Mysteryman said :

You’re correct. People don’t realise how many of those ~10 deaths a year are attributed to “speed”. Not many of them. Approximately 20%, last time I checked….

Sooo, hardly any deaths are attributed to speed, yet here we are putting in place a system which targets speeding.

Stats show that unlicensed/unregistered drivers are over represented in accidents. We could be spending the same money on more RAPID systems (and cops to use them), which are proven to catch these unlicensed/unregistered threats.

They tried this in Canada, pew pew pew and the problem was fixed.

Mysteryman said :

I wish the greens would actually review the data concerning speed cameras and their lack of effectiveness in “road safety” and dismiss the idea completely.

I’m glad they are at least thinking about the issue.

They are only lacking in effect becase of the giant advertisments, at least with P2P, you dont get the ‘I’ll just slow for the camera effect.

Sure, you can pull up and wait at the camera, to make sure you keep in time, but really, why speed then?

Camera’s need to be hidden, mobile, and frequent.

If you are not sure weather or not you are in front of one, you will watch your speed!

creative_canberran2:58 pm 26 Aug 11

Jim Jones said :

creative_canberran said :

I’ve yet to see any evidence that speed camera reduce fatalities.

Start here: http://www.camerassavelives.vic.gov.au/home/road+trauma/research+and+evidence/

A stack of links to Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) reports.

The article says: “Since cameras were introduced in the late 1980s, Victoria’s road toll has more than halved and the 2010 road toll of 288 is the lowest annual road toll since monthly records began back in 1952.”

and

“The eight years from 2003 to 2010 are the eight lowest road toll years since records started in 1952.”

post hoc ergo proper hoc?

Also, I note that those reports linked to on that site all make “crash outcomes” the focus, which is silly given the advances in design and safety over that period. The page doesn’t seem to make reference to a decline in the number of total incidents on the roads, which according to insurers and other sources is actually increasing.

shadow boxer2:56 pm 26 Aug 11

Mysteryman said :

I wish the greens would actually review the data concerning speed cameras and their lack of effectiveness in “road safety” and dismiss the idea completely.

I’m glad they are at least thinking about the issue.

I thought speed cameras were for black spots, is the GDE a particulalrly accident prone piece of road ? we haven’t even built it or areed a speed limit.

Nothing like waiting a decabe for a piece of infrastructure and then throttling it as soon as it becomes available.

Will the data collected from all cameras be available through FOI?

Bluey said :

creative_canberran said :

I’ve yet to see any evidence that speed camera reduce fatalities.
in fact much of the reduction in fatalities in the past 15yrs has been through advances in car design and safety equipment. Figure I’ve seen suggest the number of actual collisions has increased in that time.

Have you ever noticed that these people always say a line similar to that above:
“…contribute to a reduction in deaths and injuries that occur on our roads each year”

Not reduce collisions or road accident, but the results of them. And not in itself, but “contribute”.

Making things safer doesnt always make things better.

When it was mandated that cars A pillars be made thicker to withstand rollovers (very rare) how many small to medium collisions now occur due to a car in the A pillar blind spot?

I am absolutely against P2P speed cameras. In a jurisdiction as small as canberra averaging ~10 deaths a year this is a HUGE waste of money and impost on the community. I expect to see roads crawl to a halt at the 2nd camera point as people try and bring their average speed down.

How many cops and cop cars with RAPID could we get for the same money? way better value than Big Brother watching our every move.

You’re correct. People don’t realise how many of those ~10 deaths a year are attributed to “speed”. Not many of them. Approximately 20%, last time I checked. And the speed in those accidents was well above the posted limited – the sort of dangerous behaviour that takes place regardless of speed cameras.

More police on the road is one of the correct answers to the question of road safety in the ACT. Speed cameras are not.

creative_canberran said :

I’ve yet to see any evidence that speed camera reduce fatalities.

Start here: http://www.camerassavelives.vic.gov.au/home/road+trauma/research+and+evidence/

A stack of links to Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) reports.

creative_canberran said :

I’ve yet to see any evidence that speed camera reduce fatalities.
in fact much of the reduction in fatalities in the past 15yrs has been through advances in car design and safety equipment. Figure I’ve seen suggest the number of actual collisions has increased in that time.

Have you ever noticed that these people always say a line similar to that above:
“…contribute to a reduction in deaths and injuries that occur on our roads each year”

Not reduce collisions or road accident, but the results of them. And not in itself, but “contribute”.

Making things safer doesnt always make things better.

When it was mandated that cars A pillars be made thicker to withstand rollovers (very rare) how many small to medium collisions now occur due to a car in the A pillar blind spot?

I am absolutely against P2P speed cameras. In a jurisdiction as small as canberra averaging ~10 deaths a year this is a HUGE waste of money and impost on the community. I expect to see roads crawl to a halt at the 2nd camera point as people try and bring their average speed down.

How many cops and cop cars with RAPID could we get for the same money? way better value than Big Brother watching our every move.

creative_canberran12:20 pm 26 Aug 11

I’ve yet to see any evidence that speed camera reduce fatalities.
in fact much of the reduction in fatalities in the past 15yrs has been through advances in car design and safety equipment. Figure I’ve seen suggest the number of actual collisions has increased in that time.

Have you ever noticed that these people always say a line similar to that above:
“…contribute to a reduction in deaths and injuries that occur on our roads each year”

Not reduce collisions or road accident, but the results of them. And not in itself, but “contribute”.

I wish the greens would actually review the data concerning speed cameras and their lack of effectiveness in “road safety” and dismiss the idea completely.

I’m glad they are at least thinking about the issue.

Captain RAAF11:56 am 26 Aug 11

All it will take is one disgruntled employee who needs some evidence of some wrong doing, like an extra-marital affair for instance, to access the files, gain the proof they need, act on that proof and then the cameras will start getting set on fire etc.

You can only push the people so far and MOST people believe that MOST speed cameras are a revenue rasining con and they won’t stand for the government collecting intel on their movements. With the number of fatalities in the ACT due to excessive speed, is there really a requirement for this technology here?

Is this the debate we need to have

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.

Quoted from the June RA thread: http://the-riotact.com/point-to-point-camera-legislation-introduced/49220/comment-page-3#comments

This was in the Canberra times today. The ‘controversial use” is the fact that the government wants to store photos of every vehicle that passes for future use, whether it was speeding or not. Seems sensible to take some care before agreeing to an extra use like that. (and I just read a comment from someone on another topic where they seemed concerned the greens were making Canberra a big brother state, so they should appreciate this particular move).

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.